Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Belfast Harbour Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Manchester Corporation. Bill (by Order),

Reigate Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Glasgow and South-Western Railway (Ayr Harbour Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill.

Read the third time, and passed.

Dock and Harbour Bills,

So much of the Resolution of the 20th day of this instant February relating to Dock and Harbour Bills as refers to the Waterford Harbour Bill read, and discharged.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

MEMBER SWORN.

Sir Joseph Walton, Borough of Barnsley, took the Oath and signed the Roll.

CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1918–19).

Estimate presented of the further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1919 [by Command]; referred to a Standing Committee, and to be printed. [No. 23.]

SUPPLY.

Order [14th February] referring Civil Services (Supplementary Estimate, 1918–19), presented 11th February, and Civil Services and Revenue Departments (Estimates, 1919–20) and Civil Services and Revenue Departments, 1919–20 (Vote on
Account), presented 13th February, to the Committee of Supply, read, and discharged.

Civil Services (Supplementary Estimate, 1918–19), Civil Services and Revenue Departments (Estimates, 1919–20), and Civil Services and Revenue Departments, 1919–20 (Vote on Account), referred to a Standing Committee.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

Order [18th February] referring Navy Estimates, 1919–20, to the Committee of Supply, read, and, so far as it relates to Votes other than Votes A and 1, discharged.

Navy Estimates, 1919–20 (other than Votes A and 1), referred to a Standing Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURTS EMERGENCY POWERS ACT.

Major ENTWISTLE: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the large numbers of industrial insurance policy-holders who are protected under the Courts Emergency Powers Act; and whether he has made any inquiries as to the position of these policy-holders when that Act ceases to operate?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): My right hon. Friend is aware that a large number of industrial policy-holders the premiums on whoso policies have not been paid during the War are covered by the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. The question as to the position of these policy-holders will be borne in mind when determining the scope of an inquiry into industrial assurance business which it has been decided to hold.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

TIMBER SUPPLIES.

Mr. RAPER: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that none of the fifths and
wrack lying in the Surrey Commercial and other docks in the United Kingdom and shipped to the order of the Government timber Buyer will be at any time utilised in the construction of houses to be built under the Government scheme; and whether he is aware that the employment of such inferior timber in houses is detrimental to public health on account of the fungoid growth which it develops?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Timber imported by the Government Buyer is disposed of to the timber trade for ordinary commercial purposes, and I have no information as to the persons who ultimately purchase, or the purpose to which they apply the timber. Whether any of the fifths or wrack referred to would be suitable for housing is a very technical matter which cannot well be dealt with by question and answer in the House. Housing construction under the Government scheme is a matter concerning the Local Government Board, by whom arrangements for safeguarding against the use of unsuitable materials will no doubt be made.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the timber used in the Salisbury Plain huts was unsuitable?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Gentleman supplies me with information on that subject I will have inquiry made.

Mr. RAPER: In view of the fact that this timber is quite unsuitable for house construction, is there any reason why its use should not be forbidden?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand some of the wood classified as fifths is capable of being used, because it is only a question of being of uneven lengths, and therefore it is impossible to give an exact definition in the form which the hon. Gentleman desires.

LONDON AREAS.

Mr. HIGHAM: 43.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is in a position to state what is the policy of the Government with respect to improving the living conditions of the people in thickly congested London districts where no land is available for new housing; and how the Government proposes to make the present tenements and small houses in these districts fit for heroes to live in?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): It is proposed to grant financial assistance towards rehousing schemes undertaken in connection with improvement and reconstruction schemes under Parts I. and II. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. The question of additional powers for the improvement and adaptation of existing accommodation is being carefully considered in connection with the Housing Bill.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 44.
asked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware of a committee, formed by the local authorities in Greater London, which has formulated a scheme for a joint committee to consider and carry out, if necessary, the programme for housing as a whole; and whether he is in favour of such a scheme?

Major ASTOR: A conference of county and local authorities has been considering the question of housing in Greater London, and has, I am informed, passed a resolution to the effect that it is desirable that all the local authorities of Greater London should work together in carrying out as a co-ordinated whole any schemes that have been, or may be, adopted by such authorities. My right hon. Friend is not without hope that some solution of this difficult question may be found, and he has intimated to representatives of the local authorities concerned that he shall be happy to co-operate with them with this object.

Mr. BILLING: When may we expect the Housing Bill?

Major ASTOR: I would say that no time is being lost.

NOTICES TO QUIT.

Major NEWMAN: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give a pledge that, by legislation or regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act, the hardship now threatened to the middle classes by eviction from or sale of the houses they occupy will be dealt with before 25th March?

Mr. ROWLANDS: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have decided what action they will take to allay the widespread feeling of insecurity and anxiety amongst the tenants who have had served upon them notices to quit or buy?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): This subject, which is extremely complicated, has been receiving the close consideration of the Home Affairs Committee, and I hope that a decision may be announced very shortly.

Mr. ROWLANDS: Can we possibly have an early decision, as this question is causing very great inconvenience over an enormous area?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am well aware of that. They have been dealing with it, and they hope to come to an immediate decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS.

OVERCROWDING OF TRAINS.

Mr. FRANCE: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute an inquiry into the causes of the overcrowding of trains and the measures necessary to give relief to a long-suffering public?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I doubt whether an inquiry such as that suggested would be likely to lead to any very useful result. The causes of the overcrowding of the railways are known, and arise mainly from the shortage of rolling stock, materials, and staff. The Railway Executive Committee assure me that the railway companies are doing, and will continue to do, everything possible to effect improvements as and when circumstances permit.

Mr. WILLIAM CARTER: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the passenger trains running between Nottingham and Mansfield, on the Midland and Great Central lines, are totally inadequate to meet the demands of the travelling public; and, if so, whether he will ask the Railway Executive to remove the congestion by running some additional trains?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am communicating with the Railway Executive Committee on this matter, and will write to the hon. Gentleman when I have received their reply.

GOODS RATES.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the existing railway controversy, he will lay upon the Table of the House an analytical statement of the rates for goods now charged on the chief British railways, together with a com-
parison of the goods rates charged at the present time in France and the United States and before the War in Germany?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend doubts whether any reliable and useful analysis and comparison of goods rates could be prepared on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSORSHIP (LETTERS).

6. Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that letters are now coming in to this country, passed by the Censor, from Austrian firms soliciting a renewal of business with English manufacturers with whom they dealt prior to the War; and, of so, whether he will give instructions that such letters shall not in future be passed?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The letter which my hon. Friend has in mind was from a firm in the territory of the new Czecho-Slovakian Republic, and was quite properly passed by the Censor in accordance with the general licence of the 11th instant allowing trade with Czecho-Slovakia.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. ARNOLD: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a Committee is being formed, or about to be formed, to assist the Board of Trade in coming to decisions as to the removal or retention of restrictions on imports; if so, what is to be the constitution of the Committee; and whether consumers are to be represented on the Committee?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The whole matter is receiving close attention at present. Beyond that I am not able to make an immediate statement, except that all interests involved will receive proper consideration.

Mr. ARNOLD: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to give the names of this Committee, and, when announcing them, will be state the interests the various Members represent?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not say there was going to be a Committee.

Mr. KILEY: Is it the fact that a number of private meetings have been held for the weeks past under the direction of the Imports Restriction Department in the City of London, and will he give an undertaking that none of those recommendations are carried into effect without public notice being given?

Mr. BR1DGEMAN: The whole matter is under consideration, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is making every effort to ascertain the opinion of everybody concerned.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who is looking after the interests of the public to keep prices down?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The interests of the public are being considered as well.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who by?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: By the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. ARNOLD: 9.
asked whether certain restrictions on imports which have been temporarily withdrawn have been, or will be, reimposed; and whether this action has been taken following upon representations from the National Union of Manufacturers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Certain general licences were issued on the signing of the Armistice and announced at the time as being available only till 1st March. Pending a decision on the whole question, some of these licences are not being renewed.

Mr. ARNOLD: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the second part of the question, "Whether this action has been taken following upon representations from the National Union of Manufacturers"?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It has been taken on representations received from a great many different people.

Mr. ARNOLD: Were any consumers consulted, and, if not, why?

Mr. FRANCE: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman can arrange that these matters shall be discussed in the House of Commons instead of between private meetings of manufacturers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that question, which should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations that it is desirable that Parliament should be con-
sulted about restrictions on imports into the country, and not vested interests which will profit by such restrictions?

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALL: May I ask if a very important deputation of manufacturers not comprising any one special society interviewed the President of the Board of Trade, and did he not give his decision after most careful consideration of the question?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As I have said, every consideration is being given to every interest.

Major HAYWARD: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what articles of import are still subject to embargo, restriction, and licence, respectively, stating, in the cases of restriction, the nature of the restriction, and, in the case of licence, the conditions upon which such licences are granted; and the names of the several persons or committees advising the Board upon these matters, respectively?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The whole question of import restrictions, including licensing, is at present under consideration. I am not yet in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

Mr. LONSDALE: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any protest from manufacturers regarding the importation of foreign manufactured goods into this country which will interfere with employment; and what action he proposes taking in the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Many such communications have been received, and the fullest consideration is being given to them. The whole question is now under careful examination, and I hope that a decision will be reached very shortly.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it under consideration to put an end to our export trade altogether?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir.

Captain HAMBRO: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the policy of the Government with regard to imports of foreign goods into this country and the export of British goods?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The whole question of import restrictions during the recon-
struction period is under consideration, and I cannot make any announcement at present. As regards exports, restrictions are being removed as quickly as possible, consistently with safeguarding the supplies of this country and with the general blockade policy of the Allies.

Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask whether, in connection with the restriction of imports, the policy which the Board of Trade are taking is not to allow imports to interfere with employment in this country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think I had better have notice of that question.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether he will ask the President of the Board of Trade, in future, in regard to matters under consideration, to give approximate dates when this House might get the facts?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think that depends entirely upon the President of the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAPER SUPPLIES.

Mr. ARNOLD: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that paper is at present being sold in the United States at under 3d. per lb.; whether he is aware that the controlled price for similar quality of paper in this country is 4¾d. per lb., and that buyers frequently have to pay much more; and whether, in these circumstances, he will remove the import restrictions on paper?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am informed that paper of the quality known as "Newsprint" is being sold in the United States at the present time at the equivalent of less than 3d. per lb. The latest month for which the price has been fixed by the Paper Controller is December, 1918, and the price fixed 4½d. I am informed that buyers of paper outside of the ration quantities have been asked more than 4¾d. per lb. Means are provided in the Regulations whereby prices may be determined by the Controller as between buyer and seller upon application being made. The whole question of paper restriction is under discussion at the present time, and my right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement at an early date.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say what he means by an early date?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As early a date as is possible.

Major HAYWARD: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if there is still an embargo or restriction upon the importation of paper; if so, what is the reason of its continuance; if the intention is to keep up the selling price of paper in the interests of paper manufacturers; is he aware that consumers of paper, such as the proprietors of weekly journals, are gravely prejudiced both on account of the high cost of paper and the shortness of supplies; and whether he can see his way to remove all restrictions on the importation of paper at once?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Imports of paper, etc., are still restricted, and are only permitted under licence. It is realised that all users of paper, including proprietors of weekly journals, are sufferers by the prevailing high prices. The whole question of import restrictions on paper is under discussion at the present time, and my right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement at an early date.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the restriction maintained in the interests of the paper manufacturers of this country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The restriction is maintained for various considerations which I cannot answer in reply to a supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RICHBOROUGH TRAIN FERRY (CIVILIAN CONTROL).

Mr. GILBERT: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the train ferry and wharves at Richborough have now been taken over by the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company; on what terms and conditions the railway company have taken them over from the Inland Waterway and Docks Department of the War Office; and if the control will be under the Railway Executive Committee?

Captain GUEST: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. From the 1st March the train ferries and wharves at Richborough will be managed and operated as a civilian establishment by the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company's managing committee. The cost of working will be repaid to the managing committee by the War Office without profit to the committee. The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL SHORTAGE

15. Mr. GILBERT: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is still great shortage of coal in some London districts and that small buyers have to wait in queues at local coal depots in order to obtain small quantities because of the usual street delivery not being carried out by the lorries; is he aware that there is no control at these depots by which only one person or family can obtain coal; and can he arrange that more coal shall be sent to London and that it shall be delivered by lorries to the houses of small consumers to ensure that each householder and family shall have a supply of coal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Unfavourable weather conditions have interfered with the distribution of coal both by road and rail, but arrangements have been made for the lorries to deliver coal on Saturdays up to 4 p.m. in districts where there is need, and I hope this will have a good effect. Increased supplies of coal have been coming into London for the last three weeks, but the difficulty has been in their distribution.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will he consider the advisability of using some of the Army lorries in distributing this coal in districts where the poor people have no fire whatsoever?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That has been considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PERSIAN GULF OPERATIONS, 1909–1914.

Colonel YATE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether there is any reason why the officers and men of the Indian Army who were employed under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, East Indies Squadron, as Marines, and on duty on board ship in the gun-running operations in the Persian Gulf, during the years 1909 to 1914, should be debarred from the naval general service medal granted to the officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and the Royal Indian Marine, for that service?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The grant of the medal, which is a purely naval one, rests with the Admiralty, and
it has been held that military officers or men are not eligible for it. The one military officer of those who took part in the gun-running operations to whom it has been awarded discharged naval duties as Naval Intelligence Officer.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Secretary of State how the Indian soldiers feel this differentiation against them, and will he ask the reason why these men have not got the medal given to other men in the same ship?

BRITISH OFFICERS (PAY).

Colonel YATE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken to give an increase of pay to the British officers of the Indian Army such as has already been given to the Indian officers?

Mr. FISHER: The Government of India have decided to increase the pay of British officers of the Indian Army by extending to them the bonus increases of pay recently granted to officers of the British Regular Army for the period during which Armies of Occupation will be maintained. In view of this concession the Government of India do not propose at present to revise the permanent rates of pay.

Colonel YATE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this is not a question of a bonus but of the impossibility of Indian officers living on their pay in India, and will he represent this to the Secretary of State?

LAJPAT RAI.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian patriot, Lajpat Rai, may yet be permitted to return from America to this country?

Mr. TERRELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is quite in order to describe a person of doubtful character as an Indian patriot on the Question Paper?

Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask if it is not the case that this person whose name is in the question was deported for seditious and treacherous conduct in India?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know anything about this man. Everybody calls himself a patriot in these days.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: He was not deported.

Mr. TERRELL: Regulation 58 of the Manual of Procedure contains the provision that a question must not contain any argument, inference, imputation, epithet, or ironical expression, and I venture to think the expression "patriot" in this instance offends the rule in every way.

Commander BELLAIRS: On a further point of Order, Sir. Is an hon. Member entitled to have ten starred questions on the Paper, having already asked four supplementary questions, and may I ask what action you propose to take in the matter, Sir?

Mr. SPEAKER: The action I propose to take is not to call the last two questions.

Mr. FISHER: The answer to the question on the Paper is in the negative. If my hon. and gallant Friend will repeat his question on the signature of peace the Secretary of State will be glad to consider the matter further.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of this opportunity to contradict the allegation that the Indian patriot Lajpat Rai was deported?

REFORM BILL.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether Sir Francis Hopwood's Report has yet been received; if not, when it is expected; and whether he hopes to introduce his Indian Bill during the present Session of Parliament?

Mr. FISHER: The Committees working under Lord Southborough are still engaged on their task in India, but I hope that they may find it possible to report at no distant date. The answer to the last question is in the affirmative.

ARMS ACT (REGULATIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the regulations under the Arms Act have yet been discontinued in India?

Mr. FISHER: The Government of India are about to issue revised regulations, based on the recommendations of a committee of official and non-official members of the Imperial Legislative Council. The new regulations will abolish all distinc-
tions of a racial character, and will enable persons of recognised status and character to obtain licences.

PAPER (GOVERNMENT USE.)

Major O'NEILL: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can say where the paper used by the Indian Army headquarters at Simla for the publication of Army Orders, etc., is manufactured; whether he is aware that it is of an unseemly colour and of bad quality; and whether he is prepared to recommend to the Government of India that they should adopt a paper of better quality and of a different colour?

Mr. FISHER: The paper to which my hon. Friend refers is made in India, and during the War the importation of the necessary chemicals and other material was restricted. A better quality paper would involve higher costs, the kind used suits requirements satisfactorily, and the Secretary of State sees no reason to interfere with the discretion of the Government of India in the matter.

ROWLATT COMMITTEE.

Colonel YATE: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can assure the House that the Government of India, in meeting Amendments in Select Committee of the Imperial Legislative Council to the Bills giving effect to the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee, will accept nothing that will in any way tend to weaken the measures considered necessary by that Committee?

Mr. FISHER: Beyond their proposal to limit the Emergency Powers Bill to aduration of three years, the Secretary of State for India knows of no change in the views of the Government of India with regard to this legislation. They have, however, stated in the Legislative Council that they will endeavour to meet in Select Committee any reasonable Amendments that do not destroy the effectiveness of the measure. The Secretary of State for India considers that in this the Government have exercised a wise discretion.

Colonel YATE: May I ask whether it is not rather cowardly on the part of the Government of India to limit the Bill to three years?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting an argument.

Colonel YATE: I will put down another question on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHAMEEN, CHINA (GERMAN RESIDENTS).

Colonel YATE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all the Germans formerly employed in the German consulate, bank, post office, trading firms, and other places in the British Concession of Shameen, in China, have now been turned out and their leases terminated; and, if not, why this course has not been adopted?

The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Under a King's Regulation, issued at the beginning of last November, all enemy leasehold properties in British Concessions in China were vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property, who was instructed at the beginning of December to proceed with their sale. As regards the German subjects mentioned, arrangements are being made for their repatriation, and it is hoped that this will take place early next month.

Colonel YATE: Are they still in the Shameen Concession?

Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR WALTER TOWNLEY.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Walter Townley, the British Minister at the Hague, recently tendered his resignation; what reason was given for such resignation; and whether the same has been accepted?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I much regret that in a supplementary reply on this matter on Thursday last I unintentionally misled the hon. Gentleman and the House. I was then unaware of the fact that Sir W. Townley had tendered his resignation on14th January by letter to the Secretary of State in Paris. This resignation was accepted, but Sir W. Townley was pressed and consented to remain at his post till the end of the summer. It would not be usual or desirable to discuss in the House the reason which may lead a high diplomatic official to retire from the Service, but there is reason to believe that Sir W. Townley had contemplated for some time such a step.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIBERIA (CANADIAN TROOPS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the labour unions and farmers' leagues in Canada are expressing vigorous opposition to the sending of Canadian troops to Russia to fight the revolution; and whether he will see that Admiral Koltchak is not given the support of Canadian troops in putting down his enemies?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As to the first part of the question, I have no direct information, but His Majesty's Government are in close touch with the Canadian Government on the subject.
As regards the final part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, the whole matter of the utilisation of the Canadian troops at present in Siberia is under consideration, but it is not possible to make any statement at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CONFERENCE.

NEW HEBRIDES.

Mr. INSKIP: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the unsatisfactory working of the Anglo-French condominium in the New Hebrides, and the fact that the commercial and agricultural future of the group chiefly depends, for geographical reasons, on the Commonwealth, steps will be taken to terminate the condominium and bring the group entirely under the British Flag, either by direct agreement with France or by a submission to the decision of the Peace Conference; and whether, in any case, an opportunity will be given before the conclusion of the Peace Conference to the Natives and settlers of the islands to express their wishes in accordance with the principle of self-determination?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question to which the hon. Member alludes has been referred to the representatives of His Majesty's Government at the Peace Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL TRANSPORT

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his Department have the necessary authority to consider
and, if approved, to put into operation urgent schemes for the improvement of either railway or tramways facilities in agricultural areas, or whether these preliminaries, which are vital to agricultural reconstruction, are to await the establishment of a Ministry of Transportation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Board have no statutory authority to initiate or operate transport schemes. Proposals are, however, under consideration by which it is hoped that certain demontration schemes may be started by the Board pending the establishment of a Ministry of Transportation.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Is it a fact that, if a local authority desires to carry out any urgent scheme by means of either motor or railway transport, it has to wait for the institution of the new Ministry—there is no other means of carrying it out?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Speaking generally, I think that is so, though, as I have said, we hope to get powers to carry out certain demonstration schemes.

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that at the time of the General Election we were promised immediate remedial legislation in that direction?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, and I hope it will be immediate.

Sir F. HALL: Will the Government again set up a Committee on Inland Transport?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think that should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Sir F. HALL: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will take it up with the Government. It is a very important matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

ALLOTMENTS.

Major PRESCOTT: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that the Tottenham Urban District Council claim that a notice was served upon the local gas company on the 13th November, 1917, taking over the Willoughby Farm site under the Cultivation of Lands Order; and whether, if he is
not able to agree with the contention of the urban authority that such notice was valid, he will consider the propriety of taking effective action with a view to the allotment cultivators remaining in possession of their plots until the gas company produce satisfactory evidence that the land is required for a greater public need than the production of home-grown food?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The agreement between the urban district council and the gas company superseded the entry by the council under the Cultivation of Lands Order, and consequently the notice to quit under the agreement is valid. The Board are, however, in communication with the gas company, and they have every hope that the company will agree to a continuance of the tenancy so far as the greater part of the land is concerned.

Major PRESCOTT: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will consider the desirability of initiating legislation for amending the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1908 with a view to removing the provision requiring allotments to be self-supporting, having regard to the impossibility of carrying out this provision in large populous towns where land in many cases cannot be acquired for less than £1,000 per acre, or will he consider the expediency of making Grants-in-Aid to those communities which are treated as necessitous areas by the Board of Education in order that the large number of war-time allotments in congested districts may be retained in some permanent form?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: An opportunity will occur of raising the question to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers in connection with the Land Settlement Bill, which will be introduced shortly.

TRAWLERS AWAITING REPAIR.

Major ENTWISTLE: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that there are forty trawlers at present lying in Hull Docks awaiting repairs, which cannot be carried out owing to the strikes, and that these trawlers are urgently required by the fishing industry; whether other trawlers are also being released by the Admiralty which will be held up for the same reasons; and whether he is taking any action to secure the carrying out of
the necessary repairs in view of the value of these vessels in increasing the food supplies of the nation?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board are aware of the circumstances to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and of the resulting loss to the nation's food supply. The Board are unable to intervene in one part of a much larger labour dispute, which is receiving the anxious consideration of the Government.

Mr. PERCY: 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Government will at an early date proceed with the formation of a Central Fishery Board for England on lines similar to those of the Scotch Fishery Board, whose work has been so effective in developing the Scottish fishing industry?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Leader of the House on the 17th instant.

MILK AND CHEESE.

Captain FITZROY: 35.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware of the need of an announcement on the subject of summer milk and cheese prices; and whether he is in a position to make any statement?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. G. H. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. I am fully aware of the necessity for an early announcement on the subject of summer milk and cheese prices, and hope to be able to issue a statement on the subject in the near future.

Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIER: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to receive the Committee's Report upon that before he comes to a decision?

Mr. ROBERTS: A Commission is now inquiring into the matter, and will consider that Report.

Captain FITZROY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the necessity of publishing that Report when it is received?

Mr. ROBERTS: I will take that into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANKS.

Sir EDWARD GOULD1NG: 38.
asked the Minister of Munitions whether an
inquiry has been made into the circumstances under which tanks were adopted for military purposes; whether the Report has been received; and whether, in view of the great interest the country takes in the part played by the tanks in the War, he can now present the Report to Parliament?

The DEPUTY MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I assume that my hon. Friend refers to a Committee set up by the late Minister of Munitions to advise him in regard to certain claims which were put forward in connection with the development of tanks. That Committee has reported, but in view of the limited scope of their inquiry, I do not think any public interest would be served by presenting the Report to Parliament.

Sir E. GOULDING: Can my hon. Friend see his way to place on the Table the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Moulton?

Mr. KELLAWAY: That was the Committee I have in mind. That Committee reported on a very limited aspect of the subject, and, under the circumstances, I do not think it would be to the public advantage to publish that Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

DISCHARGED SERVICE MEN.

Mr. RAPER: 40.
asked the Minister of Munitions whether arrangements are being made to retain in the Government service discharged Service men who have been working in the Ministry of Munitions as temporary officials; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such men shall be given preference in filling any suitable permanent post which may be vacant?

Mr. KELLAWAY: No permanent posts exist in the Ministry of Munitions, but in selecting the staff for appointments which may have to be filled in any permanent organisation that may be set up, special consideration will, to the fullest extent possible, be given to the claims of discharged Service men.

Mr. RAPER: Is it the practice at present to dispense with the services of disabled men taken on temporarily?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Where discharges have to be made, the preference of employment is given to discharged Service men.

Mr. RAPER: Will sympathetic consideration be given to any cases brought forward of disabled men who have been given notice?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I shall continue to give sympathetic consideration to such cases.

CONTRACTORS (BLACK LIST).

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPE: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether his Department has kept a list of contractors who have been struck off the Government rolls for misconduct in connection with war supplies; and, if so, whether he will lay the list upon the Table of this House?

Mr. KELLAWAY: A black list of Contractors, whose names have been removed from the List of Contractors employed by the Minister on account of misconduct in connection with war supplies, is kept in the Ministry of Munitions. That list however, is treated as strictly confidential, and it is not in the public interest that it should be published.

Sir J. HOPE: Is it not in the public interest to punish those firms who have endangered the lives of our soldiers and sailors, and obtained fraudulent profit at the expense of the nation; and has any promise been made to those firms that their names shall not be disclosed to Parliament?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I examined this question carefully from the point of view put by my hon. and gallant Friend, and I was advised that the difficulty was largely a legal one, that any publication of names might involve us in considerable litigation, which would have the effect of restricting the liberty of officials in placing contractors on the black list.

Sir J. HOPE: Is it not a fact that anything laid on the Table of this House is privileged?

Sir HENRY DALZIEL: In the event of the names being asked for in a question, would the hon. Gentleman feel justified in refusing to give the names?

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Are the names of any German patriots on this black list?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I think I had better give an undertaking that I shall be prepared to consider the whole question in view of what has been said.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask, as I have a question down to-day—not an oral question—asking for names, whether the names are going to be suppressed?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait until that question comes.

Sir F. HALL: I want to know now.

Sir J. HOPE: Will the hon. Gentleman say what the legal difficulty is in publishing these names, and whether the House is not privileged if the names are laid on the Table of this House?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have stated what I was advised was the legal difficulty, that if this information was published, it might have involved the different Government. Departments in litigation, and to that extent would restrict the freedom of action of officials, and so have the effect of limiting the number of names placed on the list. But I am quite prepared to consider the whole question.

Sir J. BUTCHER: This is very important. May I ask if the Law Officers have been consulted?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The Law Officers shall be consulted. The legal opinion so far taken was the legal opinion of the officials of the Ministry, and I may say in this respect our practice at the Ministry is on all fours with that of other Government Departments.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the Government are afraid to publish these names because of the consequences? Is that to be the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. DEVLIN: If the hon. Gentleman has been justified in removing these names, what is he afraid of in connection with legal action?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have given the explanation.

Sir E. CARSON: In view of the answers given by my hon. Friend, I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether, after what has been put forward as the practice of all the Departments, he would have the question reconsidered with a
view to making public the name of every contractor who has committed breaches of his obligations during the War?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The subject is new to me. I have listened to the questions and answers, and I will suggest to my hon. Friend that it does require reconsideration, which he has promised.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of setting up a Committee to hear the various eases? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ARSENAL (DISCHARGED MEN).

Mr. CROOKS: 42.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that men who are being discharged from the Royal Arsenal are receiving the bonus to which they are entitled on the basis of their pre-war rates of wages; and whether, in view of the present cost of living and the increased wages which have been granted to meet this, he will consider granting to discharged men the bonus on the basis of their present rates?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I have arranged to answer this question for my hon. Friend. All war-wage advances and war bonuses which have been granted on a purely temporary basis have, in accordance with the general practice, been excluded in the calculation of gratuities and pensions alike. The normal standard rates of pay have always been the basis for superannuation purposes, and I fear this basis cannot be disturbed. Temporary advances are always understood to be non-pensionable and non-gratuitable.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE (PROPAGANDA).

Mr. STURROCK: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether certain sections of the late Ministry of Information have now been incorporated in the Foreign Office; whether he can state what functions they are performing; and whether an estimate has been made as to the annual cost of this extension of the work of the Foreign Office?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this ques-
tion. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. By direction of the War Cabinet, at the dissolution of the Ministry of Information, other Government Departments were instructed to consider what elements of permanent value they should assume from among the activities of that Ministry; and the Foreign Office is now again responsible for the enlightenment of foreign countries as to British objects and achievements. I trust that this information will more and more assume a commercial complexion, and be a valuable aid to British trade abroad. An estimate of the annual cost of such work has been made and presented to the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUT-OF-WORK DONATIONS.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing number of persons in the United Kingdom in receipt of out-of-work donations, he is prepared to announce a policy by which this unproductive expenditure of public money can be checked, and the labour which is now being entirely wasted can be utilised?

Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. Unemployment donation is only payable when no suitable work is available for the claimant. It has unfortunately been our experience that, owing to various causes, industry has been slow to start again and consequently opportunities for employment have been restricted. The Government, however, is proceeding as rapidly as possible with schemes which are designed to provide increased employment.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a very large number of cases in Great Britain, as well as in Ireland, very grave abuses have arisen, the number of persons in receipt of these out-of-work benefits having increased in the last month from 380,000 to nearly three-quarters of a million?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE.

Colonel BURN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have considered the desirability of consolidating various provisions relating to compensation to workpeople in respect to accidents, industrial disease, and sick-
ness under the National Insurance Act so as to avoid overlapping and excessive cost of administration?

Major ASTOR: There are fundamental differences between the present statutory provisions relating to compensation for accidents and industrial diseases and those dealing with insurance against sickness, which would make any such consolidation as is suggested in the question a matter of considerable difficulty. There is already provision against overlapping between National Health Insurance and workmen's compensation under Section 11 of the National Insurance Act, 1911.

Oral Answers to Questions — JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

Colonel BURN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the Ministry of Labour is pressing employers and trade unions to adopt the provisions of the Report of the Committee on the Relations, between Employers and Employed (Whitley Report), it is the; policy of the Ministry of Labour to refer difficulties to consultative committees of employers and workpeople from time to time before such difficulties become actually acute, or is it the policy of the-Ministry of Labour to wait till difficulties arise before taking advantage of such consultations; and whether, in this connection, the Ministry of Labourhas adopted the recommendations of the Ministry of Munitions Joint Committee on Industrial Embargo (Mr. Justice M'Cardie's Committee) so far as these recommendations affect the necessity for close and constant consultation between the Ministry and the parties concerned?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The Ministry is in close and constant consultation with parties concerned in disputes which are either likely to arise or have arisen, and to what extent permanent arrangements of this kind can be made is one of the subjects which I hope will be discussed at the forthcoming Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL UNREST.

EDUCATIONAL PROPAGANDA.

Mr. STURROCK: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the National War Aims
Committee is still in existence; whether he can state what work it is doing; and whether it is proposed to utilise this organisation in connection with the statement that propaganda is necessary at home in order to aid in preventing industrial unrest?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The activities of the National War Aims Committee were suspended from 13th November, 1918, and the Committee was formally dissolved on 21st February, 1919. The question of setting up a definite Department for public information is receiving consideration, but meanwhile the necessary work is being carried on by the Departments concerned.

Mr. DEVLIN: If this question is under consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of the paragraph in the "Daily News" to-day which says that a Committee has been set up?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not seen the paragraph. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will answer it.

Mr. DEVLIN: I shall certainly put down two or three.

Sir D. MACLEAN: In the further consideration of this matter will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great undesirability of committing the Government to propaganda in this country on subjects which provoke acute controversy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That, of course, will be considered, but there are many subjects where, I am sure, all parties will agree that information ought to be circulated.

Mr. STURROCK: Will the House be given an opportunity of discussing the question of future propaganda before any action is taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Of necessity there will be an opportunity on the Vote.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the propaganda include misrepresentation of Ireland in America?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would not the matter be discussed upstairs in Grand Committee?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Not necessarily; every Vote must be reported to this House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we have a guarantee that the matter will be discussed downstairs?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I cannot give such a guarantee.

Mr. DEVLIN: In this very important matter affecting liberty of publication, freedom of the Press, freedom from corruption and Government interference, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is discussed; it is more than a matter of expenditure, it is a matter of policy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The matter is one that cannot be delayed; some information ought to be published at once. If, however, there is any general desire for discussion I shall certainly do my best to give opportunity for it.

Mr. WATERSON: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether any committee has been set up to carry on an educational propaganda affecting employers and workpeople; if so, has such committee met; what are its functions and main objects; and is he prepared to make any statement on the subject?

Mr. PRATT: I have been asked to answer this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the remaining parts do not, therefore, arise.

CONFERENCE.

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the forthcoming Industrial Conference, it is his intention to put forward the principle of the co-partnership of capital and labour as a solution of the conflict between them, and to advocate the sharing between them of any increased output and of the profit resulting from their united efforts?

Mr. PRATT: I have been asked to answer this question. It is hoped that not only this but other suggestions which will be helpful in removing the causes of industrial unrest will be discussed at the forthcoming Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — INFLUENZA.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the necessity of circumscribing infection of the present influenza epidemic; and whether he proposes to take legislative or other action to secure
the notification of the disease, the prevention of people suffering from it being employed in the preparation or handling of food or drink for human consumption, and of the education of the public as to what they should do to combat the epidemic?

Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It is, of course, desirable to circumscribe infection as far as practicable, and as to the various measures which may be adopted perhaps I may refer to the Memorandum on influenza which was prepared by the Medical Department of the Local Government Board, and issued last week. The Board's medical officers advise that notification of all influenza cases throughout the country at the present time would not provide an effective means of controlling the spread of the disease, and that any advantages which such notification would have would be outweighed by the additional burden placed on medical men and health officials. Influenzal pneumonia has, however, been made notifiable as from 1st March, with the special object of enabling assistance to be given in cases in need of the nursing or home assistance which local authorities can provide, or assist in providing. It is possible that influenza may be spread by handling articles of food and drink as suggested, but it does not seem practicable to remove this risk by legislative action.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the urgent need for more medical men in certain industrial neighbourhoods, and will he do his best to expedite the demobilisation of medical men?

Major ASTOR: Yes.

An HON. MEMBER: In the event of it being found that the spread of the disease is due to insufficient food and clothing, will the hon. Gentleman make efforts to provide sufficient food and clothing for the poor that cannot get them to-day?

Major ASTOR: That matter shall be considered.

Captain LOSEBY: 67.
asked the President of the Local Government Board what steps he has taken or proposes to take, to meet the re-occurrence of the influenza scourge?

Major ASTOR: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given last Tuesday on this subject and also to the Memorandum which has been just issued to local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

PRIORITY OF RELEASE.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Order dated 30th January, 1919, and issued by the Ministry of Labour Demobilisation and Resettlement Department, enabling an employer to apply for the demobilisation of a man (not liable for service in the Army of Occupation) if he was in his service on or before the 4th August, 1914, can be extended so as to meet the case where his employer of 1914 has given up his business or is dead by allowing another employer to apply for him?

Mr. PRATT: I have been asked to answer this question. The case referred to is already provided for by paragraph 5 (b) of the Order mentioned. Under this procedure the man could be registered as a "slip" man and would get the same priority of release as a man who has a direct offer of pre-war employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECOND CHAMBER (REFORM).

Viscount WOLMER: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to introduce proposals this year concerning the reform of the Second Chamber or the relations between the two Houses of Parliament?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think that it will be possible to deal with this subject during the present Session, but the Government recognise its importance and urgency.

Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate in public the lines along which the Government measures are likely to proceed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can give no promise. It is not a simple question.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if there is any need for such a Chamber?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I suppose that must be a matter of opinion, but if I am asked I shall say "Yes."

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLDIERS' GRAVES.

Sir B. STANIER: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been
called to the indignation aroused among the relatives of soldiers killed in France by the refusal of the Government to allow them to put crosses over their graves instead of the regulation headstone; and whether, in order to avoid outraging their sentiments, he is prepared to allow those relatives who wish to record and demonstrate the fact that those whom they love died in the Christian faith to erect crosses over their graves?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finchley on Tuesday last and to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans on Wednesday last fully explaining the circumstances which led to the adoption of a regimental headstone bearing an incised cross. The question of a cruciform memorial as distinguished from the headstone with a cross engraved upon it has for some time been engaging the attention of the Imperial War Graves Commission. No decision of a hasty or arbitrary nature will be taken and every endeavour will be made to interpret truly the wishes of those concerned.

Major NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to receive a deputation on this subject?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly; or I would put a deputation in contact with the Imperial War Graves Commission.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is there any necessity to standardise the headstones?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a matter which I cannot attempt to prejudge, but the reasons which have led to the present view were very fully stated, and there are very great physical difficulties in the way of giving that full indulgence to individual feeling which no doubt everyone would wish.

Mr. DEVLIN: What physical difficulty is there in placing a cross over a grave?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I could explain to my hon. Friend in detail a great many difficulties there are, especially having regard to the length of time within which it is necessary that memorials should be put up. There are more than 500,000 graves to be dealt with in France alone.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).

Mr. BILLING: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to provide that the disposal of Government property shall be so arranged as to permit purchase by individuals, especially in regard to Government lorries, etc., so that demobilised men who are anxious to start small transport businesses of their own may not be exploited by large speculative buyers?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, Sir. Since the date of the Armistice motor lorries have so far only been sold individually. This practice will continue to be followed, exception only being allowed in cases of cars which are much worn and damaged. The Disposal Board will require notice of all such exceptions before the sale in block is approved.

Mr. BILLING: Is it proposed to hold sales and issue catalogues in the ordinary way or will the property be sold by private tender?

Mr. KELLAWAY: They will be sold by auction and catalogues will be issued in the ordinary way.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that practice extend to Mesopotamia and Egypt?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I shall require notice of that. I am only speaking of this country.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Could any legislation be introduced to enable some of this obsolete paraphernalia of war to be sold to disabled sailors and soldiers at easy prices?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I think the suggestion which I made last week ought to enable us to get over that difficulty, but we are prepared to assist any organisation which applies on behalf of soldiers and sailors.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUBERCULOUS EX-SERVICE MEN (TREATMENT).

Lieutenant-Colonel RAW: 56.
asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for a Select Committee to be appointed to consider the best means of giving immediate treatment to ex-Service tuberculous soldiers and sailors?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government is already considering the best means of carrying out what my hon. and gallant Friend has in view.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARDANELLES COMMISSION (COST).

Major NEWMAN: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give the total cost of the Dardanelles Commission to date?

Mr. BALDWIN: The approximate cost of the Dardanelles Commission was £4,850. The expenditure was completed early in 1918.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TERMS.

Sir RICHARD COOPER: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will include in the terms of peace a stipulation that the German Government shall disclose the names of all persons and associations in this country who received subventions from the German Government before the War?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already stated, it is not possible to discuss details of such subjects by means of question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will obtain authority from Parliament to compel the attendance of witnesses if necessary at the Coal Investigation Committee, to enforce the production of all requisite documents, and to take evidence on oath?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The necessary legislation is down as the First Order of the Day.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPTURED BRITISH GUNS.

63. Colonel BURN: 63.
asked the Prime Minister if he will, through the British representatives at the Peace Conference, demand the immediate return of all British guns captured by the Germans which now ornament the Unter den Linden, Berlin, and the principal streets of other German towns?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This is being done.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER (OXFORD UNIVERSITY).

Major E. WOOD: 68.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the register of Parliamentary voters for the University of Oxford; whether the addresses of a large number of voters are not furnished; and, if so, whether there are any special difficulties to which this fact may be attributed?

Major ASTOR: By Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, the register of electors for a university constituency is to be kept and made up in the form directed by the governing body of the university, and the general provisions and Rules in the Act relating to the preparation of registers of electors do not apply. My right hon. Friend communicated with the Registrar of Oxford University, and is informed that the register is made out in accordance with a Decree passed by Convocation, and contains the name, college, and degree of each elector. I understand that the home addresses of many graduates are not in the possession of the university authorities, but are more generally known to the college authorities, and that if communications to an elector are sent to his college they will be forwarded to him if his address is known. It, therefore, rests with an elector to see that his college is in possession of his address.

Major WOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it desirable to answer the first part as to whether they cannot do what has been done in the case of the University of Cambridge, where they have a complete register in possession of the university with all the home addresses?

Major ASTOR: I will suggest that to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL ELECTION.

POLLING STATIONS.

Mr. SITCH: 69.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to electors at the recent General Election in many rural districts owing to the paucity of polling stations; whether he is aware that at the forthcoming rural district council elections many electors will have to go four miles, and
sometimes more, to record their votes; and whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a circular or otherwise approach the local authorities with a view to the provision of a polling station in every village populous enough to contain a public elementary school?

Major ASTOR: Prior to the General Election a few representations were received in favour of further polling facilities. These were communicated to the county councils concerned, who appointed additional polling places where possible. My right hon. Friend has no information, however, that general inconvenience was caused to electors in rural districts at the election. As regards elections of rural district councillors, any poll for the election of a councillor for a parish would, as a rule, be held at a place in the parish, unless there is not a suitable room available in the parish. Any poll for the election of parish councillors would take place at the same time. Where small parishes are united together to elect a rural district councillor, my right hon. Friend does not think it would be practicable, in view of the expense involved, to arrange in every case for a polling station in each such parish. If, however, the hon. Member will inform my right hon. Friend of the names of the particular parishes to which he refers, he will consider what action can be taken.

ABSENT VOTERS (RETURNED ELECTION ADDRESSES).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 70.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that envelopes containing election addresses of candidates, which were posted early in December after being addressed from the officially corrected lists of absent voters, are still being returned in large quantities; and whether he will take special care, in connection with the compilation of the new register, to see that better facilities are afforded sailors and soldiers abroad for the exercise of their Parliamentary franchise?

Major ASTOR: I understand that many of the envelopes addressed to absent voters containing the election addresses of candidates at the General Election have been returned undelivered owing to the address being insufficient or the absence of the voter from his unit or some similar reason. As to the last part of the question, the hon. Member may rest assured
that every possible step will be taken to facilitate sailors and soldiers voting at any Parliamentary election which may occur on the new register.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman observe that the question was whether these things are still coming back in large quantities at the present time, and whether that does not indicate some great laxity in the preparation of the list?

Major ASTOR: A certain number have been coming back, but every endeavour is being made to see that the next list is more complete.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ELECTION).

Mr. LORT-WILLIAMS: 71.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that boards of guardians and other local authorities are anxiously awaiting a pronouncement on the subject of the next ordinary elections; whether it is intended to introduce legislation dealing with the question of the retirement of members of local authorities and other matters in connection therewith; and, if so, when?

Major ASTOR: Circulars are being issued to the local authorities whose elections take place in April next. As was stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for St. Helens on the 17th instant, the Government are not proposing legislation on the subject of the retirement of the members of local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION (WAR BONUS).

Captain LOSEBY: 72.
asked the Pensions Minister whether soldiers compulsorily retained to form part of the Army of Occupation in Germany or who subsequently form the said Army receive the war bonus retrospectively or otherwise as from 1st February, 1919, whereas soldiers who owing to their good service are only temporarily retained do not receive such bonus; and will he take steps to secure for all soldiers who form part, temporarily or otherwise, of the Army of Occupation payment of the bonus as from 1st February, 1919?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The bonus is payable only to men who are definitely retained for duty in the Armies of Occupation and not to those who will be demobilised in their turn at the earliest possible date. Anyone can obtain the increased bonuses by volunteering to join the Armies of Occupation.

Captain LOSEBY: Does not this unnecessarily penalise men who have borne the brunt of the War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I do not think so. It is the foundation of the scheme that we lately announced that one-quarter of the Army are offered the increased bonus and are compelled to remain and that three-quarters are denied the increased bonus and will be demobilised as rapidly as possible.

ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.

Captain LOSEBY: 73.
sked the Pensions Minister how many disablement pensions were awarded during the year 1918, and how many applications were made for alternative pensions?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): The total number of disablement pensions awarded in 1918 for all ranks of the Army, Navy, and Air Force was 244,451, and 4,977 applications for alternative pensions were received. The number of widows' pensions awarded during the year was 71,614, and there were 18,326 applications for widows' alternative pensions.

Captain LOSEBY: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that only one per cent. or little more have applied for this magnificent grant, and does he not think that this points to the fact that the alternative pensions are quite insufficiently advertised and are unknown to the majority of soldiers?

Sir J. CRAIG: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that every possible step is being taken to let those who are desirous of obtaining alternative pensions know what are their rights.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether those 200,000 were first applications or renewals?

Sir J. CRAIG: I would like to have notice of that question.

WIDOWS.

Mr. BILLING: 74.
asked the Pensions Minister whether many widows of Soldiers and sailors are not enjoying the State benefits to which they are entitled owing to lack of knowledge as to the procedure to be adopted to obtain them; and whether, in these circumstances, he will give instructions that a simple statement as to the procedure to be adopted in these cases shall be prepared and issued to the women concerned through the medium of the post offices?

Sir J. CRAIG: Steps have already been taken to bring to the notice of widows the State benefits which they may claim. Every widow and dependant receives from the Pensions Issue Office a booklet which contains information regarding pensions and allowances for widows. A handbook devoted solely to widows and dependants is being prepared, and will soon be issued.

Mr. BILLING: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question and say whether the Ministry are prepared to do it through the Post Office; and is he aware that there is great ignorance among the widows of soldiers and sailors as to what they are entitled to or how they are to make their claims?

Sir J. CRAIG: I will carefully consider the suggestion whether something might not be done through the Post Office. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our desire to give the greatest possible publicity.

Mr. BILLING: 75.
asked the Pensions Minister whether, having regard to the constantly increasing cost of necessities, he is prepared to reconsider the position and the pensions of war widows?

Sir J. CRAIG: I cannot admit the statement of fact in the question. I hope the time has come when the cost of necessities will gradually decrease.

Mr. BILLING: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman considered the advisability of doing something so that these women may have the wherewithal to live, seeing that any decrease in the price of commodities is problematic?

Sir J. CRAIG: I was under the impression that there was a gradual decrease.

Mr. BILLING: Not in necessities.

DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (TRAINING).

Mr. GRATTON DOYLE: asked the Pensions Minister whether there is discontent amongst naval and military pensioners at the proposed transfer of power to train disabled soldiers and sailors from the Ministry of Pensions to the Ministry of Labour; whether he is aware of a resolution passed by the Northumberland Naval and Military War Pensions Committee urging that the Government should immediately reconsider such decision; and whether, in these circumstances, it is still intended that the proposed transfer shall take effect?

Sir J. CRAIG: I am aware that there has been some discontent, and that protests have been received from several war pensions committees. I think this is due to a misunderstanding of the proposals. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the circular just issued to the local war pensions committees in which the division of duties between the Pensions Ministry and the Labour Ministry is fully explained.

PENSIONS ADDITIONS.

Major COHEN: 77.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the promised 20 per cent. addition to all pensions is in fact only being given to non-commissioned officers and men and is being denied to officers?

Sir J. CRAIG: The answer is in the affirmative. The question of extending the bonus to officers is under consideration.

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 78.
asked the Pensions Minister the name of each of the members of the Committee recently appointed in connection with the supply and fitting of and repairs to artificial limbs, and the qualifications of each to advise on such matters and their previous experience and occupation; and if any officials of the Pensions Department who are or have been responsible for such work are included in the Committee or any surgeons?

Sir J. CRAIG: The Committee consists of the following:
Mr. Herbert Guedalla, the Chairman, a leading business man who has been Controller of Commercial Finance at the
Ministry of Munitions (Supply). Hebrings exceptional ability and complete independence and freshness of view to bear on the problems to be considered.
Mr. Raymond Johnson, M.B., B.S. (London), F.R.C.S., who is Holme Lecturer on Clinical Surgery at University College Hospital.
Sir Charles Kenderdine, who is Director of the Artificial Limbs Branch of the Ministry. He is the only official of the Ministry on the Committee.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Reigate Division of Surrey, and
The hon. and gallant Member for Nelson and Colne.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Have the Ministry considered the advisability of appointing some such authority as Sir Robert Jones's Committee?

Sir J. CRAIG: I am quite sure that the matter received the most careful attention before this particular Committee was appointed. All the facts, of course, were before the Minister.

ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS (PRIVATE A. PLOWRIGHT).

Mr. W. CARTER: 79.
asked the Pensions Minister whether Private A. Plowright, No. 21296, late Royal Welsh Fusiliers, was passed into the Army on the 27th January, 1915, Class A1, and was discharged on the 17th January, 1915, medically unfit for further military service; that his panel doctor states that he only consulted him once for some trivial ailment; that his employer states that he lost no time through sickness while in his employ; that he is now dying of consumption and has been suffering from tuberculosis ever since he was discharged from the Army; that he was discharged as suffering from hammer-toes; and that the Appeal Tribunal have decided that the man's present condition is not attributable to his military service; and, if so, will he ask the Appeal Tribunal to reconsider their decision?

Sir J. CRAIG: All the evidence in this case has been most carefully considered by the Pension Appeal Tribunal, who unanimously decided that Mr. Plowright's unfitness was not attributable to or aggravated by military service in consequence of the present War. They were unable to accept his contention that the tubercu-
losis (which originated nearly a year after discharge) was either caused or aggravated by his four months' military service. My right hon. Friend regrets, therefore, that he is unable to take any further action in the matter.

Mr. CARTER: Are we to understand that there is no hope for this unfortunate man who suffered no symptoms of this deadly disease before he entered His Majesty's Forces?

Sir J. CRAIG: With all the sympathy in the world, I can only repeat that the Appeal Tribunal had the whole of the facts before them, and they decided that the disease could not be considered attributable to the four months' service he had in the War.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Appeal Tribunals have often given such decisions and have afterwards changed their opinions?

Sir J. CRAIG: I think my hon. Friend is mixing up the Appeals Tribunals with the medical boards from which the appeals are taken.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I mean the medical boards.

Mr. HOGGE: Could my hon. and gallant Friend help this man's case through the Special Grants Committee?

Sir J. CRAIG: I would like to have notice of that question. I am not quite sure what can be done for a man if he has been turned down by the Appeal Tribunal.

Sir F. HALL: Is not the date of attestation taken as the datum line with regard to the condition of a man's health, and, if he was passed A1 when he was attested and only suffered disability after that date, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say on what ground the authorities turned him down and said that the disease was not attributable to his service?

Sir J. CRAIG: I can only assure my hon. and gallant Friend that when the case was brought before the Appeal Tribunal every possible avenue was explored. The independent chairman and the capable men who assist and help him assure us that everything possible is done, and that all the facts are brought out before the tribunal.

Sir F. HALL: In view of the importance of this matter, I would like to ask permission to put a further question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better put down any further questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS FOE ORAL ANSWER.

MINISTERS (ATTENDANCE ON FRIDAYS).

Mr. DEVLIN: On Friday last I put a series of questions down to the Minister of Labour when I attended here in the usual course to put them, neither the Minister nor his Parliamentary representative was present. When I complained to you, you stated that, although it was customary last Session to have questions put and answered on Fridays, there was no necessity for Ministers to attend to answer questions. I thought if that were so, that it was a strange thing that these questions should be put upon the Paper at all, but, in view of your ruling, I did not contest the matter further. I put the questions down again for to-day, but I find that they are not on the Paper, and that neither the Minister nor his assistant is here. I would therefore like to have some explanation.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Gentleman gave no notice at the Table of the postponement of the questions, and the answers were, therefore, circulated in the ordinary way on Saturday morning.

Mr. DEVLIN: Immediately you gave your decision I cut the questions out and left them on the Table.

Mr. SPEAKER: The proper course would be to inform the clerk at the Table that you wished to postpone the questions till Monday; then the answers would not be circulated.

Mr. DEVLIN: I marked "Monday" on the questions when I handed them in at the Table. I did not want a written answer to the questions; if I had wished for that I should have handed them in for written answers. But I knew I would get an unsatisfactory reply, and I wanted to take advantage of that unsatisfactory reply to make use of it on the Motion for Adjournment.

Mr. SPEAKER: It appears that your notice was never received at the Table.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But has a Minister any right to circulate a question which has been postponed?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister does not circulate questions; he only circulates the answers.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I accept your correction, Sir. May I repeat my question anew on the point of Order: Whether or not a Minister has any right to circulate an answer to a question without the permission of the hon. Gentleman who has put it down?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the question is not reached, then the Minister hands in the reply, which will be circulated on the next day and appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But have you not on many occasions ruled that a Minister has no right to circulate an answer when the question itself has been postponed by the Member? Are we to understand this is a new ruling?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly what I said. If the question is not postponed, then it is the duty of the Minister to hand in his reply, which is circulated the next morning in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But surely, if I may be allowed to say so, you yourself directed the hon. Member for Belfast to postpone his questions, and that therefore was a postponement of them?

Mr. SPEAKER: I gave no instructions to anybody. What I said was that if the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast had given notice at the Table that he wished his questions postponed, then they would have been postponed. But no such notice was received.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

LIMITATION OF NUMBER.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I call your attention to the state of the Order Paper? A large number of the questions have not been reached. Four Members are responsible for thirty-three starred questions, and each one of the four Members asked a number of supplementary questions. On several days there have been over 200 questions, and I wish
respectfully to ask, may we have a further limit imposed, so that the number of questions allowed to each Member is reduced from eight to four?

Mr. SPEAKER: I would not like to make any alteration of the existing practice except with the general assent of the House. If the House generally desires that the limit to the number of questions should be four, it will be my duty to see that no more than four are called.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: Will you consult the House as to whether the number should be reduced?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I should get diverse answers. I do not know whether I can take it now—

Mr. JOHN JONES: Don't you assume too much power, governor.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly the way to address the Chair!

Mr. JONES: I beg your pardon, I was not referring to you, but to some of the Members behind here.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the way to refer to any hon. Member of the House. I think perhaps I might try the suggestion, and if it be found successful, act upon it. But if the Questions are over before a quarter to four then the rule could be relaxed.

Colonel W. THORNE: May I humbly suggest you make a beginning by reducing the number to six first. [HON. MEMBERS: "Four."]

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to constitute a Commission to inquire into the position of and conditions prevailing in the Coal Industry.
I apologise to the House for having to place a Bill in front of the Bill dealing with National Health, but there is nothing more essential to a community than the adoption of means for the prevention of civil strife. That is the prospect with which we are confronted, and which each and all of us ought to do everything in our power to prevent occurring. As time is a matter of very considerable importance, after I have introduced the Bill, I shall ask the House to consent to proceed with the measure; and if we can got it through the whole of its stages to-day, there will be an advantage which all of those who are familiar with the details of this controversy will realise, because they know perfectly well that time is very essential, and that it is a matter of hours, let alone days.
I have no doubt that hon. Members have made themselves acquainted with the controversies that have arisen, and for the settlement of which this Bill is one of the methods of procedure. The miners of this country, through their organisations, have put forward certain demands. The first deals with the demobilisation of miners, the second with wages, the third with hours of labour, and the fourth with the conditions under which the mining industry is being conducted. With regard to demobilisation, I will only say this much, that it is a demand for special conditions for demobilised miners. Up to the present a special effort has been made to demobilise miners. They have been placed in front of other industries, and very nearly 200,000 have already been demobilised, owing to the importance of getting as much coal as possible in order to set industries going. The terms of demobilisation may not be satisfactory, but, at any rate, they are the most generous terms given by any country in Europe; and in making a demand for their increase one must bear in mind that a con-
cession of that kind would add to the very crushing burdens under which the community is now groaning, and will groan for some time to come. I will therefore say no more about the conditions of demobilisation, beyond this, that if there be anything that can be done to improve them we are willing to discuss it.
4.0 P.M.
I come to the more important demands formulated by the mining industry—demands which are more permanent in their character and which are certainly more permanent in their effects. They are demands in respect of wages, of hours, and of conditions. The first is a demand that the wages of the miners should be put up by 30 per cent. With regard to hours, they demand that they should be reduced from eight to six, which is not a reduction of 25 per cent., but of two hours taken off the working hours. It is a reduction of one-third in their effective hours. [Several Hon. Members: "Oh!"] That is another argument for a Court of inquiry. It shows that there is a dispute as to the effect at the very start. I am advised that that would be the effect, but I can see that is not what my hon. Friends wish it to be. That shows—I am very glad to perceive it—that at any rate there is ground for accommodation in that particular.
But I want to tell the House why the Government have hesitated to grant these terms without a most careful inquiry, and without an inquiry that would elicit more information than is now in the possession of the Government—information which we could not obtain without a Bill of this character. What will be the effect of those terms? I am advised that it will be a very serious burden upon other industries, so serious, so grave that it might have the effect of throwing scores, indeed hundreds of thousands, of persons out of employment. It might cripple our export trade, and if it crippled our export trade in coal, in iron, in steel, in machinery, it would cripple our shipping, and when I mention these trades I am mentioning those on which the strength and the wealth and the prosperity of this country largely depend. It may be that the figures we have are inaccurate. It may be that the figures with which we have been supplied could be sufficiently explained. That is a reason for inquiry. What is the information in our possession? That the cost of steel, which is already high, would go up by at least 10 per cent.; the increased
price of coal would be between 8s. and 10s. a ton. In the steel trade it would add 10 per cent. at least. It would affect the blast furnaces, the engineering trade, the shipbuilding trade, the shipping trade, the house-building trade, railways; in fact, there is hardly any industry that would not be impaired very seriously by an increased charge of that kind. The coal trade itself would be seriously damaged.
It must have struck the House as very remarkable that the minority against striking was so much higher in South Wales than in any other coalfield. That is a very significant fact. It means that the South Wales coalfield depends very largely upon its exports; but so does the industry of this country. We exported in 1913—I take a normal year—very nearly 74,000,000 tons of coal. That does not include bunker coal, which would add another 23,000,000 or 24,000,000 tons. That is an important element, because it enters into the price of everything—raw material, food and general business with foreign countries. Now it is proposed to put it up another 8s. or 10s. Let the House consider for a moment how serious that is. America is a very serious competitor of ours in this respect, and the export trade of coal is more important for us than it is for America. Coal fetches food; coal pays for food; coal pays the outgoing charges of a ship which comes back with food. What is the result? Half of the freights are paid by coal. If we destroy that export trade in coal, food goes up, inevitably. You have got to send your ships in ballast to fetch it. Raw material goes up. I know of nothing more dangerous to a country like this which must, whatever you do, depend for its raw material and largely for its food upon foreign lands.
At the beginning of the War, I am told, the cost of coal at the pit's mouth in America was pretty much the same as ours. There was not very much difference. At the present moment the cost of Pocahontas coal is a little over two and a half dollars—about 11s. I think. The cost of coal in this country at the pit's mouth now is given to me from one source as 18s. It was then—1913—about 11s. It is now about 18s. as against American 11s. The figure given me from another source is 18s. 11d. It
does not matter very much whether it is 18s. or 18s. 11d. There is a difference of 7s. It is proposed now to add another 8s. to 10s. to that 18s. Some say more, but, at any rate, let me put the figures as they were presented to me officially. These are the figures supplied to me officially. That means that the cost at the pit's mouth, if these concessions be made, will be something like 26s. a ton, as against the American Pocahontas coal at 12s. at the outside. What is going to be the result? Those who know the South Wales coalfield know what has happened already. We have lost huge orders in Brazil, where we practically dominated the market before the War. We are losing in the Argentine. That is very important. We used to send coal ships to the Argentine, and come back with wheat and meat. We have lost that trade. Can anyone, then, in reason complain that before the Government made a concession of this kind they should say, at any rate, "Let us examine the thing carefully"?
We have come to a very serious turning-point in our trade. What does it profit a miner if this happen? Scores of thousands, hundreds of thousands, will be thrown out in the blast furnaces, in engineering, in machinery, in building, in all the export trades of this country, and we depend more on export than any other country in the world. That comes home to the miner. The demand for coal will go down, and he will lose immediately by the loss in the export of coal from the coalfield.
There are two objects for this demand. There are not merely two, but there are two. The first is to meet the increased cost of living; the other is to prevent unemployment by having more work. Let me point out, if these figures be correct, so far from improving these two conditions, it will aggravate both. It will increase the cost of food by forcing ships to fetch your food in ballast, and it will increase unemployment by destroying your export trade, unless these figures can be shaken, and we are quite willing that every opportunity shall be given, and no one will be more delighted than my colleagues and myself if it were possible to show that these figures are inaccurate. That is why we have hesitated to make this concession without the closest inquiry, not merely into the justice of the demand, but into its effect on all other trades and industries of the kingdom, because the Government is not the trustees for one class, but the trustee for
all classes, not merely for one section of workmen, but for all workmen in the United Kingdom.
What is the miners' answer? I am going to put it quite fairly. I had the privilege the other day of meeting the Miners' Federation, when their case was very temperately and very ably stated by Mr. Smillie, their leader, and I have also read, as far as I could, every statement which has been made on behalf of the miners in every paper in the kingdom, and in so far as I can see—I will just summarise the answers—they state, first of all, that it is not true to say that other industries will be damaged by this increased cost, and that these figures are inaccurate. I have not seen the ground on which these figures are challenged, but you cannot allow one industry to be the judge in a case affecting all other industries without any inquiry at all. I know hon. Members sitting opposite to me represent organised labour, very nearly half of them are miners' representatives, and I should like to ask those who represent iron and steel whether they are equally confident that their business is not going to be damaged by the miners' demands?

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: We standby the miners.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not an answer to my question. I can understand that spirit of comradeship, but at the same time I should like to ask, on their responsibility—those who are acquainted with the business—whether they are quite confident that the figures I have given are not correct about the effect on the iron and steel trade? [An Hon. Member: "Ten per cent. would not affect it very much."] I hope the hon. Member is correct, but, if he be, he can state that fact before a court of inquiry, and no doubt that will be evidence in support of the miners' claim. The other answer is this. They say: Even if it were correct, that is no answer to a legitimate claim for improving the standard of living among the miners. Well, it is, up to a point, If the miners were paid starvation wages it would be no answer. [Interruption.] I am coming to that—I am dividing the two. First of all, there is the case of sweating, where a man is paid something which would not enable him to keep body and soul together with his family. No one puts that case for the miners. If it were a case of the sweated wage, I agree it
is no answer, but that is not the case which is made. The coal getters, I find, receive an average of 81s. a week—that is on five days' work. I think it was Mr. Smillie who said that the average for all those who were working would be a little over £3 5s. a week. I do not say that is adequate for the dangerous character of the work. That is not my case. All I say is that when you are improving the standard, when the wage is not a sweated one, when it is not a starvation wage, and when you are seeking merely to reach an ideal we all hope to attain, it ought to be done in such a way as not to precipitate disaster upon other industries. Other industries ought to have, at any rate, time to adjust themselves to a demand of that character.
The third point made by the miners is that the mines could afford this extra burden, provided certain measures were taken to save waste. They say that the mining industry in this country is so organised that there is an appalling waste. I am not challenging that in the least, but I say it is a matter for very careful inquiry after hearing evidence. I have no doubt improvements could be effected. Whether they could be effected to the extent of wiping out 8s. or 10s. a tonI doubt. But let us find out. If it is, that is a complete answer. There is nothing worse, in my judgment, than quoting balance sheets of very prosperous collieries as if they represented the whole of the coal trade. That is done rather too frequently. You may pick out a colliery where the profits are very considerable. I know collieries of that kind in Wales—they are very exceptional—but I also know collieries which have not paid, and where the colliery proprietor only went on working, at any rate before the War, because he had to pay a dead-weight charge. There are others where the profit is practically insignificant. If you take all the profits of the collieries throughout the United Kingdom—I think it is right this should be known—for the five years before the War, they come to exactly 1s. per ton. The royalties come to 6d. per ton. If you wipe the whole of that out, you do not cover 8s. to 10s. per ton. So it is no use branding profiteering as if it explained everything, and as if you got the extra 8s. or 10s. per ton out of the colossal profits that some were making. I think it right that that should be known.
I now come to the question of the reorganisation of the mines. I think the mine owners themselves admit that some savings could be effected if there were a more complete organisation of the whole of the mining industry. That is worth looking into, but there is no man here who can get up and say that he has investigated the matter, having had all the facts and figures in his possession, and has come to the conclusion that so many shillings per ton could be saved. It is a question which has to be gone into with that closeness and with that information which this Commission may have placed at its disposal. It is worth looking into. It is a matter of vital moment to our industries that there should be savings, and I think the industries of this country would be all the better for having facts of that kind looked into by able men, competent to examine the facts impartially, who will have the power to command the presentation to them of all the relevant facts. I am not for the moment saying that there might not be a great deal of saving, but I should be very doubtful if you could save 8s. to 10s. per ton, or anything approaching it.
I was very much struck in that statement made by Mr. Smillie, and I think by others, by another question which seemed to be affecting the miners' minds, and I was not surprised that it should affect their minds—that is, the general social conditions under which the miners live and carry on their business. There is a very bitter feeling about the housing question. I am not in the least surprised. I know something of the housing conditions in some of the coalfields. I hope they are better in those I do not know. If they be not, I can understand the sense of indignation that has been aroused. I go beyond that—I can understand even the spirit of unreason that is provoked by constantly living in these appalling, and I would even say, degrading conditions. Those conditions will be examined, among others, by this Commission, and evidence can be brought before it to deal with mutters of that kind.
For that reason we propose to set up a Statutory Commission. A Royal Commission would not answer the purpose. A Royal Commission would not have the necessary powers to command the attendance of witnesses, to compel them to give evidence, or to force them to produce all the documents which are relevant to the
inquiry. For that reason we have decided to have a Statutory Commission with the authority of Parliament behind it. The terms of reference will cover
"Wages and hours of work."
That will cover inequalities between grades, because that is important. They will cover
"The cost of production and distribution of coal, and the general organisation of the coalfield and the industry as a whole."
That will cover questions like joint control. I see that the coal owners have gone very far in their reply towards meeting that demand, but whether they have gone far enough it is not for me to express an opinion. It is no use setting up a Commission and then pre-judging it by expressing opinions on subjects of that kind. They can inquire into the question of nationalisation, as to whether that would produce economy in the coalfields, or whether it would produce even greater waste. All these questions can be examined and ought to be examined—
"Selling prices and profits in the coal industry."
So that the whole question of profiteering may be examined—
"The social conditions under which colliery workers carry on their industry."
That would cover housing.
Any scheme that may be submitted to or formulated by the Commissioners for the future organisation of the coal industry, whether on the present basis, or on the basis of joint control, nationalisation, or any other basis.
The effect of mining royalties and way leaves upon the industry.
The effect of proposals under the above heads upon the development of the coal industry and the economic life of the country.
There are full powers to see what the effect of this will be upon other trades and upon other industries. We then seek in the measure the fullest powers, as I have already indicated, to enforce the attendance of witnesses, examine them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise, and to compel the production of documents. There will be the same power vested in this Commission to compel the production of relevant documents as now vests in a Court of Justice. There will be full publicity. There will be power vested in the Commissioners in special cases, where they think it is fair that the evidence should be given without the presence of the public, to decide that for themselves. But the rule will be publicity, because it is
of the fullest importance that all the facts in connection with the coal industry should be made public so that the miners and Parliament and the public should know all about it. I think that will avoid disputes instead of creating them. That covers a wide field.
The miners may say: "Are we to wait until the whole of these very important matters"—which, by the way, are covered by their demands—"are investigated before we get an increase in our wages or a reduction in our hours of labour?" An instruction is to be given by the Government that the Commission shall report on wages and hours of labour by the 31st March. I ask anyone who is acquainted with all the difficulties—the accounts that will have to be examined, the evidence that must be taken with regard to the effect upon other industries—whether it is unreasonable to give to the 31st March for this Commission to examine, a matter which will affect every trade and industry in the whole of the United Kingdom? The miners insist upon the reply being given by the 15th March—that is sixteen days. I cannot, believe, when they find that the Commission is a bonâ fide one, that it is conducting a searching examination into the whole of the facts with a desire to do justice between them and the rest of the community, that they will throw the whole of the industries of this country into confusion and disaster for the sake of sixteen days.
Let me point out what these sixteen days mean. Sixteen days' strike under present conditions would see the majority of the industries of this country closed down, and the Government would have to feed the community with such fuel as was at its disposal. If there were distress, it would fall upon every branch of the community. It would not be a question whether you could pay. The food would be entirely in the hands of the Government, and they would have to distribute it. The miners would have to depend, like every other branch of the community, upon such food as we should be able to distribute with the exhausted fuel resources at our disposal. I cannot believe that these disasters would be brought upon the community for sixteen days, which would have been spent in an honest inquiry directed by Parliament to the wages and hours of labour of the miners.
With regard to the composition of the Commission, I hope the House of Commons will enable us to proceed, at any rate, to the appointment of the Chairman. We cannot even do that until we have got this Bill through. The composition of the Commission we shall not be in a positon to give the House, for a very obvious reason. The miners have summoned a conference for Wednesday to decide whether they shall take part in the Commission or not. Obviously the composition of the Commission will be a different one according to whether they are members or whether they are not. For instance, if the miners be on, the mine owners ought to be on. If the miners be not on, I do not think the mine owners ought to be on. There ought to be men of other industries and men of other professions sitting in judgment, and the mine owners and the miners giving evidence. I am expressing no opinion at all, I am not even giving my view as to what is desirable in that respect, but at any rate we cannot determine the composition of the Commission until we know what is the view of the miners upon that most important point. We made an offer to them. If they desire to go on, we are prepared to put them on, in which case we should also put on the mine owners. If they come to the conclusion that they would rather not be members of the Commission, we must have a Commission of a different character. But that does not prevent our making up our mind as to the Chairman. We have come to the conclusion that it is desirable here to appoint a judge, and we have chosen for this purpose not merely one of the ablest judges on the Bench, but one who has special qualifications in this respect, because he has been practising in one of the most important coalfields, has seen a good deal of local miners and mine owners during that period, and knows more about them than probably any other judge on the Bench. I mean Mr. Justice Sankey. He has consented to take the Chair.
Although we cannot complete the Commission until after Wednesday, no time will be lost the moment the chairman is appointed, and the Bill is through. He can then take steps to notify Government Departments as to the kind of information which he desires. When the composition is complete, as time is so pressing, it is important that the Chairman should get to work at once with his secretary, and give notice all round as to what informa-
tion he wants preparing by all those whose business it will be to enlighten the Commission upon the various branches of this Inquiry. I therefore strongly urge the House to let us have the Bill to-day if they possibly can. It is drafted in the form in which all Statutory Commissions have been prepared. We have had a good many precedents, and have proceeded upon them.
If the miners—and I feel certain they will—act in a spirit of toleration towards other industries which are so vitally affected, of consideration for the special difficulties of this country, with its gigantic burden—a country for which hundreds of thousands of their men fought so valiantly and so well—they will find that as the result of this Inquiry, in my judgment, they will get a Miners' Charter which will be the beginning of greater and better things for them, and if they do so, and throw themselves into this Inquiry and present their case—in some respects, as I know, irresistible, in others requiring undoubtedly some greater proof than I have seen up to the present, but I am not prejudiced—they will achieve great things for their industry and for the men whom they so ably lead, and will have the satisfaction, when they have got these things, of knowing that they have obtained them without inflicting any hurt upon hundreds of thousands of other men and women engaged in honest toil like themselves.

Mr ADAMSON: I am sure the House will appreciate the very interesting statement which we have just had from the Prime Minister, and I think there would be no difficulty in him getting facilities for proceeding with the Bill. At the same time, the issue raised in it is of such an important character that I hope he will not seek to rush it through the House in the time that he has stated. It will be the only opportunity that the miners will have for putting their case fully before the public, and I therefore strongly urge upon him the advisability of giving us adequate time for discussing this matter in all its bearings. He has already stated that it will not be known until Wednesday or Thursday whether the miners themselves are agreeable to take part in this very important inquiry, and, therefore, there is no hurry for proceeding with the Bill. I am pleased to observe that the Prime Minister is taking such a keen per-
sonal interest in the subject. I hope he will be able to continue to keep in close personal touch with the dispute until some satisfactory solution is found. The issue involved are of such a serious character to the nation and to the other nations dependent upon us for their coal supply that not a single opportunity should be lost of examining every avenue which may lead to a satisfactory solution of the dispute which is pending. I was also pleased to observe that at the Conference last week the Prime Minister fully recognised the responsibility of the Government for finding a just and equitable settlement of the points at issue. He recognised that the Government was as fully responsible for securing a just and a lasting settlement as were the miners themselves. In my opinion, if the spirit which animated both the Prime Minister and the President of the Miners' Federation on the occasion to which I refer is maintained, we are not so barren of statesmanship as to prevent the finding of a solution to this dispute which will avert the disaster involved in a fight between the State and the workmen engaged in one of the most vital and most strongly organised industries in the country. Already we are dangerously near a conflict. The fact that the minors have voted by a majority almost amounting to five to one in favour of a strike shows how near the country is to disaster. The total figures for the ballot, which have just come to hand, are, in favour of a strike 611,998, against 104,997—a majority in favour of a strike of 507,001.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: What is the total membership?

Mr. ADAMSON: The total membership of the Miners' Federation is somewhere in the region of 750,000. The Prime Minister seemed to take some consolation to himself because of the fact that the minority against the strike in Wales—

The PRIME MINISTER: No; not consolation. I only pointed out the very significant fact that in the one coalfield which depends very largely upon export you had a substantial minority.

Mr. ADAMSON: In the words of his correction, the Prime Minister noted the interesting fact that there was a larger minority in the Welsh coalfield than in any other part of the Federation area. I am not in a position to say whether that is correct or otherwise, but the minority all told is not a large one. Further, the
South Wales coalfield is not the only part of the Federation area where there is a large export trade. In my own district in normal times at least 70 per cent. of the total output is sea borne. Up to the present I do not think the Government has done all it could to meet the miners' demands. Apart altogether from certain phases of the question which may require a Commission of the character that the Prime Minister is providing for, I think there are certain points in the dispute with which the Government has sufficient data at its disposal now to deal effectively. For example, I think the Government has sufficient data for dealing with the question of wages and hours. I would strongly urge upon the Prime Minister the desirability of dealing with these two claims now. I have no intention of going very fully into these matters at this stage. Others will follow who will deal with them at greater length; but I would like to point out in a few words that so far as the question of wages is concerned, I think that the justice of the miners' claim is so obvious that the Government does not require to set up a Commission of Inquiry to enable them to deal with the matter. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister in the course of his speech at the Conference last Thursday, pointed out that if the miners' figures were correct their claim would be conceded in full. I think I am using the exact words.

The PRIME MINISTER: Would you mind reading the words?

Mr. ADAMSON: I will read the full sentence:—
If it is demonstrated that our figures are incorrect and your figures are right that will be conceded in the full.
I think that before this discussion finishes there may be sufficient information placed before the Prime Minister, if he has not already sufficient, to enable him to make up his mind on the question of wages and hours. In dealing briefly with the question of wages, I look at it from the Scottish standpoint. Naturally I am better acquainted with the position there than in other parts of the British coalfields. Our case is as follows: The pre-war wage of the Scottish miner was 7s. per day. Our wages immediately prior to the War in 1914 were 7s. per day. Since then we have received in advances of one kind or another 85 per cent. increases in our wages. The cost of living during the same period has risen by 120 per cent. An hon.
Friend of mine says it has risen more, but that is the figure given in the Government return as the increased cost up to 1st February. It may be that there is a later figure than the one I am quoting, but 120 per cent. is the latest figure in the Board of Trade returns up to the 1st February. That leaves the Scottish miner deficient in wages as compared with the increased cost of living to no less an extent than 35 per cent. That is not the only way in which he is affected. The increased cost of 120 per cent. on the pre-war cost of living does not take into account the fact that it is not for things that he was accustomed to secure; it is not for items that entered into his standard of living prior to the War. He cannot get them now. He has to take substitutes in quite a number of cases. These substitutes do not provide the same amount of nourishment in order to build him up for the arduous toil that he is engaged in. Consequently, if one could assess the entire increase in his cost of living, it would amount to a larger figure than 120 per cent.
The next point in connection with the claim for increased wages is that the miners, like other sections of the working classes of this country, are not going to remain content for all time with their pre-war standard of living. The Prime Minister, in one of his election speeches, pointed out that all sections of the people of this country would require to recognise the claims of the workers to a higher standard of living in the future than obtained prior to the War. The miner thinks that he is entitled to share in the higher standard of living. The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech this afternoon, seemed to indicate that that would depend on how this claim for increased wages would affect other trades. I want to put it to the Prime Minister, and I would remind him that it was put to him on Thursday, that that is a very serious proposition which he makes to the miners. The miner could understand that proposition if you applied the same logic to every other section of the community, but he cannot understand it when the Prime Minister and the Government do not apply the same standard of measurement to other sections of the community. He was telling us that we suffered very badly by comparison with America so far as the increase in coal prices was concerned. I think the figure that he gave was 18s. a ton for us and 11s. a ton for America.
Will the Prime Minister inform us if the supplies that are necessary to carry on the coal industry, both in Britain and America, have gone up to the same extent in the two countries? Can he inform us whether wood, which is an important part of the supplies used in the coal-mining industry, the price of which has gone up 300 to 400 per cent. in this country, has gone up to the same extent in America? I am only giving that as an example. There are many other sections of the people of this country who have had no restrictions put upon the amount of money that they have been able to earn in the course of the last four years, and the miner will have something to say to the Prime Minister, the Government, and the country, if he is to be asked to undergo hardships and to accept a lower standard of living that he is entitled to, while at the same time the Prime Minister and the Government give free scope to other sections of the community to increase their earnings at their sweet will.

Mr. FRANCE: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned 7s. as the daily wage. Is that the average wage of all workers or of the hewers in Scotland?

Mr. ADAMSON: Seven shillings was the hewer's wage; the standard by which the miner's wage was measured prior to the War.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Are not actual wages much above standard wages?

5.0 P.M.

Mr. ADAMSON: Yes. The average wage is over the standard wage of the miner. Let me point out that there are a large number of our mine workers who were not earning 7s. a day prior to the War, and there is a large number of them to-day who have less than the recognised standard wage, just as there were pre-war. I have some little knowledge of the Scottish coal trade, for I have spent my life in it, and I can assure the Prime Minister that there are a large number of workers in the country who before the War had lower wages than the standard of 7s. and who now have much lower wages than the present standard by which we measure the Scottish miners' wage. I will deal briefly with the miners' claim for shorter hours. The Prime Minister, in introducing this Bill, stated that the miner had an eight-hours working day, or words to that effect. It is generally supposed that the miner has an eight-hours working day. That is
the impression that is abroad in every part of the country. I want to explain that while he may only do eight hours at the coal face or at the particular work that he is employed on underground, the miner spends on an average nine hours a day in the pit. Only eight hours elapse between the last man going down in the morning and the first man coming up in the afternoon, but that means that the average time that the miner is in the pit is at least nine hours a day, because on the average half an hour is spent in getting from the shaft to where he is employed and the same time is spent returning in the afternoon. In many cases it is harder work for the men when travelling to and from their work than it is at the coal face, arduous as their work is there. The Government itself has already, without inquiry, recognised an eight-hours day. Some employers of labour in this country have already, without inquiry, recognised loss than aneight-hours day. A forty-four hours week has been recognised by certain employers in this country. A miner is nine hours in the pit each day. Is he the only one who is to be refused the shorter working day without inquiry? Is he the only one who is to be told that before he can be granted a shorter working day we will have to see how that will affect the other sections of our industrial system? Are the Government to apply that principle to the miner who is working possibly under more adverse conditions than any other section of the workers of this country? The miner is working away from sunlight and fresh air. He is working in a vitiated atmosphere, which all the time is having a very bad effect on his health. He is working at a calling where the toll in death and in accident is possibly heavier than in any other part of our industrial system. In these conditions, I ask the Prime Minister again, is the miner the only man to whom the Government is going to say, "No; you cannot have higher wages or shorter hours until we have a Commission set up and full inquiry made"?
I hope that between now and Wednesday the Prime Minister and the Government will see their way to come to a satisfactory settlement with the miners as to wages and hours before that meeting takes place. I would also ask the Prime Minister to agree at least to the principle of nationalisation. I am not doing that in the interests of the miner alone. I am
doing it in the interest of the whole of the people of this country. We have reached a time when, in the opinion of very many people outside the mining industries, such an important industry as coal mining cannot remain longer in private hands. We have reached a time when we cannot afford to have an industry so vital to the industrial system of this country subject longer to the higgle of the market, subject to the innumerable disputes that arise between employers and employés. I urge the Prime Minister to agree to the principle of nationalising the mine, leaving it to the Commission, which he proposes in that Bill to set up, to go into all the necessary inquiries that are bound to take place prior to such a big deal as that being made. I hope that the Prime Minister will give us the fullest opportunity of putting our case here. It is the only one we will have of putting our wishes fully before the public, and I do not think, if we get that opportunity, that we need shirk the issue. I think that our people can put forward such a strong case as will justify the claim that is being made by the miner, and I hope that the Prime Minister will give us the fullest opportunity of discussing it.

Sir J. WALTON: I have the honour to have represented in this House over 20,000 coal miners for more than twenty-one years. They did me the honour of giving me in last December an unopposed return. Therefore, anything that touches their just interests I am prepared strongly to advocate on their behalf. I happen also to be interested in the distribution of coal, and to a small extent as a coal-owner. Therefore I am able, I claim, to look all round at the serious question under the consideration of the House. Before proceeding, may I be allowed to say with what deep regret I saw in this morning's paper the announcement of the death of Sir Guy Calthrop, the Coal Controller. I have often criticised his proposals and his administration, but I had the fullest respect for him personally, and I always received the most courteous and straightforward treatment at his hands. I deplore that we shall not have the advantage of having his services in connection with the Commission which will be appointed to examine the critical position in which we stand in regard to the coal trade.
I welcome the proposal of the Government to set up a Statutory Commission as a most fair and reasonable one and one necessary to secure that searching,
straightforward, above-board, and exhaustive examination of every aspect of the question which is necessary to ensure a settlement that would be just to the employers, just to the coal minors, and just to the country and the nation as a whole. I know from personal knowledge for the last more than fifty years of my association with the coal trade how arduous and dangerous a calling that is, and there is no one who knows anything of the conditions, especially in some of the pits, where thin seams are being worked and in pits that are wet, in which the coal-miner has to work, who will not advocate the shortest hours and the best wages that can be given consistently with the fair and the just interests of other sections of the community.
Perhaps I may be permitted to point out the enormous variation in the working cost of different collieries. At certain collieries, new collieries with thick seams, with a good roof and wording comparatively near the drawing shaft, an increase in cost might well be borne. But there is a large number of other collieries with seams of coal under 2 ft. thick in which the working places, by reason of most of these collieries being old collieries, are very distant from the drawing shaft, so that if the result of granting the demands of the coal miners were anything like what has been foreshadowed, these collieries will have to cease working. Indeed, to my mind, conditions of working vary so very greatly in different pits that the question of a variation in some way of working hours might well be considered. I advocated, during the passage into law of the Mines Eight Hours Bill, that the eight hours should include the time occupied in winding; but in the House of Lords that unfortunately was altered, and I should say, whatever else is done, that, as a step in the right direction, the first thing to be done is to make the Mines Eight Hours Act a really eight hours bank-to-bank Act, including the time occupied in winding. I do not say that it should stop there, but that was what I advocated at the time the Bill was passed, and I advocate it now before any inquiry is made.
The price of coal is a vital national question. Under State control the price of coal has been advanced 10s. 6d.per ton over the pre-war price. In my judgment, if the Coal Control Bill had not been passed—and it will be within the recollection of the House how strongly that Bill was opposed by myself and other hon. Mem-
bers—and we had continued working under the Coal Prices Limitation Act, the rise in prices would not have been so great. At any rate, I can claim this. I said that I was to a small extent a coal owner. I am not here speaking in my personal financial interest as a coal-owner, and I could not be doing so on this occasion, because the Government not only take 80 per cent. of any excess profits as Excess Profits Duty, but they also make a special levy of 15 per cent.—that is, 95 cent. in all—to go to the Finance Department of the Coal Control.

Sir EDGAR JONES: There is the benefit of that.

Sir J. WALTON: Yes, but the great majority of coal miners reap no benefit by the levy of 15 per cent. Only a small minority of costly poor collieries do get a grant. I submit that it is vitally necessary, if we are to secure a rapid economic recovery in this country after the War, that the output of coal should be increased largely, and that the sale of it should be arranged at a sufficiently low price, not only to restore our home industries but also to enable us to regain and increase our exports of coal the world over. America and Japan and other coal producing countries are making it very difficult for us to regain the markets we had before the War, but it is so essential to us, as the Prime Minister has said, that we should export coal to the Argentine and in other directions, and bring back wheat or other food supplies to this country. There is no question that this is vital. It is vital I know in South Wales and Northumberland, and even to the district to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) the Member for Fife has referred. The export trade in coal is really a most vital factor in the future economic prosperity of this country. There is also the question as to what the cost of coal will be after the concessions are made to the coal-miners and how that will affect the home industries. These are matters which deserve and need searching inquiry by the Statutory Commission to be set up.
To show the effect of what has been done by Governmental control and rises in wages so far let me instance the case of London gas works. I have returns here from two great London gas companies from which I find that they bought in 1913 gas coal at 11s. 8d. per ton, and they are paying now 22s. 9d. The cost of
freight from Newcastle to London at the beginning of 1914 was 3s. per ton, and to-day it is from 15s. to 17s. per ton with the difference also that the shipowner does not bear the cost of unloading. There are millions of tons sent to London for gas making purposes, and whereas coal costs 14s. 8d. c.i.f. in London before the War it now costs 39s. 9d. per ton. The effect of that on the inhabitants of London is that the price of gas in the case of one company has been raised from 2s. 6d. to 4s. 4d. per thousand cubic feet and in the case of another big company from 2s. 2d. to 4s. 4d. I think that the effect of further rises in the price of coal as affecting gas works like those in London and on the whole community must be included and taken into consideration in any inquiry. Personally I believe that there is an alternative which ought not to be lost sight of by this Statutory Commission. We have not the terms of reference clearly before us, but I sincerely hope that those terms will allow the Commission to consider this alternative, and that is as to further rises in wages or too much further rises in wages in every trade in the country increasing the cost of production. A determined effort should be made to reduce the price of food and the general cost of living so as to increase the purchasing power of money and render further advances in wages unnecessary. It is all very well for working men to receive double the wages they did before the War, but they are no better off when the cost of living is so enormously high, and I believe many were better off in pre-war days than they are to-day in spite of the large rise in wages that has been secured. Therefore, I say that, alternatively, if we are to keep down the cost of coal to a reasonable and moderate figure, and the cost of producing all the finished and manufactured goods that we wish to export all over the world, then the one essential thing to be done is to reduce the cost of living. Then the working men would be better off with their wages and their hours and you would effect a recovery of the country by increased prosperity, increased production, and by exporting all over the world. Personally, I am hopeful that a solution of the serious situation with which we are confronted will be found I cannot forget that many of the miners' leaders have advocated the settlement of international disputes by conciliation and not by dictation. Let this principle of conciliation be
applied by them in this case. Personally, I am extremely hopeful that the coal-miners of the country will at any rate see the wisdom of waiting a fortnight longer in order to have the Report of the Statutory Commission before plunging the country into the grave disaster involved in the stoppage of all industries. That, indeed, would be a serious disaster. Let us have the pride at this crisis as Britishers of showing to the whole world how we can bring into play those principles of conciliation, yes, and of good judgment and common sense, as an example and for the guidance of all the other nations of the world where to-day there is so much chaos and revolution.

Mr. VERNON HARTSHORN: I think the Prime Minister when introducing this Bill suggested that one of its objects, at any rate, was to avoid or prevent civil strife in this country. I am sure that with that object we should all be in full sympathy and agreement. But I want to suggest that certain matters should be deleted from the terms of reference, because I do not think by referring these matters for inquiry that the Bill will accomplish the object with which the Prime Minister stated the Bill has been introduced. I refer to the questions of the miners' demands for hours and wages. The Bill, I understand, provides that the Commission shall report upon those two items by the 31stMarch. We have been told by the leader of the Labour party that the miners have decided by half a million of majority that if there is no settlement by the 15th March a strike will take place throughout the nation. The Prime Minister has been suggesting that it is not too much to ask the miners to defer their decision, having regard to all that is involved, for a further sixteen days, and I agree that there is not very much in sixteen days, one way or the other. But what we have to bear in mind is this very important fact: that this movement of the miners has now reached the stage when it is very uncertain whether it is possible to defer this matter for a further sixteen days, or even for one day. I do not think there is any subject upon which so much nonsense has been talked and written as on the question of labour unrest and the labour movement. Anybody might judge, from reading Press comments and listening to conversations, that the Miners' Federation of Great Britain is a one-man business,
and if Robert Smillie were taken out and put up against a wall and shot, that all the ills with which we are at present afflicted would disappear. That seems to be the general sort of impression and I am afraid that too many people, in dealing with this, problem, conclude that it is with Robert Smillie and his colleagues on the executive and a few other individuals we have to deal, where, as a matter of fact, this movement of the miners present programme did not emanate either from the mind of Mr. Smillie or from the executive committee. It sprang direct from the miners in their own lodge meetings at the collieries.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: Have the miners ever taken a vote on the question of the programme which the Miners' Conference have submitted to the Government?

Mr. HARTSHORN: I think if the hon. Member had been listening to the leader of the party he would have remembered that he stated that a ballot is being taken, and a five hundred thousand majority being given.

Mr. EDWARDS: I should like to be perfectly clear on this point. I understand that the miners were asked to take a popular ballot upon whether they should or should not accept the Government terms, but is it the fact or is it not the fact that there was no popular vote of the miners taken instructing the conference to make those demands upon the Government?

Mr. HARTSHORN: I will explain exactly what was done in the matter, and I think I shall satisfy the hon. Member when I have made my explanation. I was pointing out that this is not a one-man business, and that the programme sprang from the miners themselves in their lodge meetings. I would like further to make clear to the House that in all these big movements—

Mr. EDWARDS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again—

Mr. HARTSHORN: I hope the hon. Member will bear in mind that this is my first experience as a speaker in the House. [An Hon. Member: "Let him go back to the miners in Wales and talk to them; go back to Glamorgan."] I stated that this movement has emanated from the miners. I would like the House to appreciate this fact that long before the public knew anything at all about a movement.
of this kind it had been afoot for months. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain is a big powerful machine, and it is not easy to move. If a miner in any part of the country wants to use his Federation he has an enormous amount of work to do. The present movement originated in this way. One of the coalfields, feeling the pressure of increasing prices, urged the executive to call a conference to discuss the matter. The miners had, first of all, to go to their lodge meetings, and then they had to go to a coalfield conference in their own district. The coalfield had to send a resolution to the national executive, and when the national executive received the application, realising that this was only a demand from one coalfield, they did not feel under obligation to convene a conference to get that matter discussed. That started last September, but by October and November that movement had spread throughout every coalfield in Britain, and demands were coming in for an advance in wages from every coalfield throughout the Kingdom. By December we were not only getting demands but we were getting censures from all the coalfields because the executive were not putting this matter forward. We called a conference in December. That conference authorised the executive to put in an application for an advance in wages. In the meantime the executive had been endeavouring to get reliable data to move upon. We had gone to the Coal Controller and asked him to supply us with that information which we knew was in his possession, so that we might defend and justify any demands we might make. He told us, after consulting the Law Officers of the Crown, that although the information was there, it could not be supplied to us. I put down a question in this House, asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the profits of the colliery owners were since 1911–12. These figures have been published for the last twenty or more years, why have they not been published during the War? I was told they had not been tabulated, and that is the reply I got. At the Coal Control we were told they had got the information there, but that it could not be supplied. As a matter of fact, we have done everything we can to get official information in order to test our demand by it, and we have been met with a refusal on the part of the Government or Government Departments whenever we have moved.
Now I am saying this, that having put the demands forward in conference, having discussed them and determined the programme, we were not content with merely sending them back to the lodges or to coalfield conferences, but we submitted them to an individual ballot vote of the members. The rules say that unless two out of every three are in favour of striking, a strike of a national character shall not take place. This ballot has shown that six out of every seven of the men who have participated in the ballot are in favour of a strike. While it is quite possible for a movement of this kind to be controlled in its early stages, the conference which will be meeting this week to discuss the matter will be up against this very salient fact. They will say they have carried the movement now to its final stage and that the miners have balloted and have given their decision. Neither the executive nor a conference can overrule and override the decision of a ballot vote, and whatever we may advocate or recommend in that conference, there will be any number of delegates prepared to rise and declare that we have no right under our constitution to defer the action which has been determined by ballot vote. If that is the position in which we find ourselves on Wednesday, I ask whether we shall accomplish the purpose suggested by the Prime Minister of preventing civil strife by having the miners of this Kingdom out for a fortnight before we shall get the interim Report on those two subjects? It is because I realise, and the Federation realise, the real serious possibility of that situation being developed that we are anxious for the Government to delete those two items from the terms of reference, not because we shirk an inquiry, not because we are not prepared to have our demands thoroughly inestigated, but because we know the Government can institute that inquiry themselves in the meantime, apart altogether from this Bill, and can get adequate information which is in their possession or which is available to them, if they will only undertake an inquiry of their own, long before 31st March. The Prime Minister said that the wage for a miner was 81s. per week for five days. I do not know where he got his information from. What are the Government going to inquire into on the question of wages and hours? It will not be sufficient for them to prove that the miners do
not require 30 per cent. in order to make good the increase in the cost of living. It will not be sufficient for them to prove that the present price of coal does not justify an increase of 30 per cent. The miners are putting forward their demands on the plea that they are entitled to a higher standard of living than they at present enjoy, and what we have to consider is this: Can the miners defend their claim on that ground? Have they at present a standard of existence with which they ought to be satisfied? Can they put forward justifiably a claim for a higher standard of living, and, if so, is that higher standard of living one beyond what they ought to have conceded to them?
The Prime Minister stated that a miner's wage was 81s. for five days. I have read, as most hon. Members present have read, all sorts of fairy tales about the miners' wages, and occasionally we get a figure stated without any information as to where it comes from or what relation it bears to the general wage system of the mines. Fortunately, we are in a position to give some reliable data as to the wages which represent the standard of living among the miners in the Welsh coalfields, and we can obtain and tabulate the same information for every other coalfield in Britain. In 1912 a Minimum Wage Bill was passed, one of the provisions of which required the independent chairman set up to fix minimum wages having regard to the average daily wages of the men employed in each grade. Under the provisions of that Act we got in South Wales the daily wages of nearly every man employed in the Welsh coalfield. We had the individual daily wages of 69,000 day-wage men over twenty-one years of age. We had the individual daily wages or earnings of over 63,000 piece-work colliers. We had the individual earnings of 28,000 persons under twenty-one years of age. Between 1912, when those figures were given, and the outbreak of war all that took place was that six and two-thirds per cent. was added to the wages prevailing. I have tabulated the actual information supplied to me. They are not figures manufactured by us, but figures taken from the books of the colliery owners and submitted by them to the independent chairman as the basis upon which he was to fix minimum rates. These are the average wages of the men based on five days a week. Of the day-wage men, 21,693 had
an average wage of 26s. 8d. or less; 11,300 had an average wage of 29s. 6d.; 22,717 had an average wage of 31s. 10d. That accounted for more than 80per cent. of the men. Less than 20 per cent. of the men were getting more than 32s. a week, and less than 2 per cent. were getting more than £2 a week, and among those 69,000 day-wage men are some of the most skilful workers who are to be found in any industry in this country. I said that we had between 21,000 and 22,000 men with wages at 26s. 8d. or less on the basis of five days a week, but the Welsh coalfield is only one-fifth of the mining industry, and there are even lower wages in other coalfields than we have in South Wales, and it is not too much to say that at the outbreak of war we had in the mining industry at least 100,000 men over twenty-one years of age whose wages varied from £1 to 27s. a week. We come now to the colliers. These are the millionaires of our industry these are the men who get such fabulously high wages. On the same basis again of five days a week 21,792 colliers averaged £1 16s. 8d., 10,518 averaged 39s. 3d.; that is, more than 50 per cent. of your skilled piecework colliers under £2 a week on the basis of five days a week. Twelve thousand eight hundred and eighty-six averaged £2 5s. 5d.; 10,972 averaged £2 12s. 10d.; and 6,353, or 10 per cent., got an average of £3 7s. We have now covered nearly 99 per cent. of the men, and there were less than 1½ per cent. of the men who got £1 a day in the industry. As a matter of fact, according to the coal-owners' own showing 154 men out of 63,000 were all the men who got that wage.
Now the question is, have we maintained that standard of living, or have we increased it, or have we not kept it up to scratch? It is rather difficult to say what has been obtained in the mining industry in the shape of percentage, because we have had advances on two bases, first, on a percentage basis, and second, we have had a sort of flat-rate advance. The flat-rate advance means a different percentage for every different grade. For instance, 3s. paid to a boy with a wage of 3s. means 100 per cent advance, 3s. paid to a man with 5s. a day means 60 per cent. advance, and 3s. paid to a man with a wage of 10s. a day means 30 per cent. advance, so that the amount of percentage advance that has been obtained varies in accordance with the varying rates paid to the workers. But if we take
the miner's rate, and his minimum rate at that, we find this, that in South Wales the colliers have had 87 per cent advance, the Durham coalfields 78 per cent., York 68 per cent., Scotland 85 per cent., Lancashire and Cheshire 68 per cent., the Midland Federation 70 per cent,, Northumberland 85 per cent., Derbyshire 68 per cent., Nottingham 68 per cent., North Wales 74 per cent., Cleveland 105 per cent., Cumberland 97 per cent., Leicestershire 70 per cent., South Derby 74 per cent., Somerset 113 per cent., Forest of Dean 88 per cent., Bristol 113 per cent., and Kent 66 per cent., and the average of all the coalfields runs into the region of about 80 per cent. Now, none of the skilled colliers have had more than that for their respective coalfields, and only those who were on the minimum at the outbreak of war and on the minimum still have received as much. Every miner getting a higher wage has received a less percentage advance. On the other hand, some of them who were low paid wage-men averaged somewhat more than that. But, on the whole, taken in the mass, our men have not maintained during the War the very unsatisfactory wage they had before the War, and they are now determined, as they were determined before the War, that a movement which they were then developing, and which has been suspended during the War, is now to be continued and pursued in order to increase their standard of living above what it was before the War.
We suggest, in all seriousness, that it is useless talking about the impossibility of reform and improvement in the lot of the workers and of industry being ruined and disaster overtaking us if the miners get a 30 per cent. advance in wages. If we cannot stand that, then we may just as well admit before the world that we have reached the end of all progress. We hear from the Prime Minister what it is going to cost, and how it is going to affect other industries, but the thing we marvel at is that we never hear anything at all about those items which enter into the cost of production and which might easily be taken off without any injustice to anybody. What is the use of my going to the men I represent and telling them, "Now you must not ask for this advance in wages; it is going to affect other workers and other industries"? I will give you a case in point. I only represent a small district of about 7,000 miners, and one
colliery company employs about 5,000 of them. Twenty years ago that colliery company had a capital of £400,000 in ordinary shares and 50,000 preference shares. In the last twenty years they have paid about £80,000 a year in dividends. They have had the money back four times over in twenty years. In the interval they have distributed a share bonus of 50 per cent. among the ordinary shareholders. They increased their share capital from £400,000 to £600,000 by bonus. Then they split their 600,000 shares into 5s. shares, and to-day those 5s. shares are selling in the market at 12s. 6d. What does that mean? Simply this. Assuming that one of the original shareholders had £10,000 in the concern, in twenty years he has drawn £40,000 in dividends, and he can now sell his shares for £37 10s.
And you expect the workers who are working in those collieries producing coal to listen to an argument that an advance in wages would increase the cost of production! They say there is a very substantial margin there for improved wages for them, without bothering about adding to the price of coal. They know that during this War the landowners of this country have exploited war conditions in connection with the supply of pit-wood from their land. Landowners, directly submarine warfare commenced, directly our ships became scarce, directly we were in difficulties to get pit-wood from foreign countries, exploited those conditions, and sent up the price of pit-wood 2, 3, 4, and even 500 per cent. not due to increased labour, but for timber as it stood in the woods. The miners want to know if the Government are going to allow that to continue. All that has entered into the cost of production, and, if it is too high, the miners say there is margin enough to bring some of it down, and that there is room for improvement here for the workers, without attempting to keep costs down by depressing wages. It is because the miners know that there is a general understanding of these facts among the workers that we say it is useless for anybody to talk to them to-day about the impossibility of their having a higher standard of living. They are out for it, and they intend to get it. The result of this ballot proves it conclusively. I welcome the inquiry proposed in the Bill so far as the future of the mining industry is concerned. We shall welcome it, and give every assistance in our power to
enable the Government to reach a right conclusion on the question of wages and hours. But we say it is useless, for the purpose of avoiding industrial strife in this country, to bring in a Bill, and force it through this House, which will defer or which will keep us waiting for a Report until the 31st March. That will not solve the trouble, in the opinion of the responsible heads of the Federation.
I only want to say one word in conclusion. We are keenly anxious that the mines of this country should be nationalised. The case I have given in point—the North Navigation—is not an isolated case at all. It is typical of Welsh mining enterprise. We say that if they have had their money back four times over in the last twenty years, we ought to see that they do not get it back four times over in the next twenty years. Justice will be done if they get it back once again, and finish with it. We say that proposition means the taking over by the State of one of the chief national assets, and that a policy under which, in the past, colliery owners have been getting something for nothing has got to cease if there as to be any peace in the mining industry in this country. We are prepared to have as much investigation as you like about it. We are prepared to give all the assistance in our power. But as to the two points which I have been emphasising, we do urge this House, and we urge the Government, not to press them, for the reason I have already given, that any conference, or any delegates in conference, will not feel they have the power to override the decision of a ballot, and defer the date of coming into operation of the strike. That being so, a Report by the 31st March will not serve the purpose for which this Bill has been introduced.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: May I congratulate the hon. Member who has just sat down upon his very admirable maiden speech? Whether we agree with his point of view or not, we are all glad to have the case presented in the temperate way such as he has put it forward. I suppose I do owe him a slight apology for pressing my question upon him during the moment of his maiden effort; but if hon. Members and right hon. Members in this House knew the hon. Member as well as I do as a protagonist on the South Wales coal-fields, they would know that what appears nervousness on this occasion was, as much as anything, the statesmanship in dealing with these questions that he practices on the
South Wales coalfields. But, as the hon. Member has not seen fit to reply to the very specific question that I put, I propose to put it, for the information of the House, in quite another way. In this matter of grave, pending national conflict it is no good dealing in mere phrases. We have got to get down to the actual bedrock facts with regard to the position. I asked the hon. Member quite specifically whether, before the executive of the Miners' Federation and the conference of the Miners' Federation formulated their demands to the Government, consisting of the four points—wages for demobilised miners, the six-hour day, the 30 per cent. increase, and nationalisation—they had taken a popular vote of the men. To that question we have not had an answer. But I will answer and say definitely that the miners of this country were never consulted before their delegates in conference assembled and their executive formulated their demands. It is perfectly true that when the Government gave a qualified refusal to those demands the conference then decided to take a popular vote of the members in the country, and the members have supported the conference and the executive. [An Hon. Member: "What more do you want than that?"] My complaint is this, that the popular vote was not taken in the first place as to whether the miners should make those demands upon the Government, and should not have been left to the second place, when the Government have given a qualified refusal.
6.0 P.M.
I rather follow it out on the lines of the hon. Member who has just spoken. He said that in the early stages the movement might have been controlled. Of course it might. It was absolutely in the hands of the delegates. But they then go to the great rank and file. They do not present a neutral case to the rank and file. They do not present a fair case to the rank and file. They do not present an honest case to the rank and file. They present such a case that the Government deems it necessary to publish independently what has been the Government's answer, and the party for which I have the honour to speak finds it necessary to formulate a case, so that the rank and file of the men may know exactly what they are being asked to vote upon in this rapidly-taken ballot. I think it is a very unfortunate circumstance that in this great crisis the Leader of the Labour party, apparently speaking for his
colleagues, the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who represent the colliery districts, should be sitting opposite in a dual capacity, sitting there as a twin Leader of the Opposition, and following out the tradition that it is the business of the Opposition to oppose. If he had been here speaking to-day with a single voice from the point of view of organised Labour he would have recognised that the great demand upon the representatives of the miners is that these things should begot through rapidly. The Government, and I congratulate them upon their courage and sympathy—the Government come to-day with a proposal to this House—even holding up so important a measure as the Health Bill—asking the House to pass rapidly into law, so far as all its stages in this House are concerned, a Bill to set up the necessary machinery to inquire into the facts of this dispute. Then comes the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and he says: "No, do not carry the thing to-day; leave it over until to-morrow, leave it even beyond then until Wednesday, when the Miners' Conference will meet again." This great Parliament, Mr. Speaker, is going to take no dictation from anybody or any section of delegates or conference, however important they may be in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I venture to suggest that on the merits of the thing the right hon. Gentleman opposite rather gives his case away. He says: "Why should the Government have this inquiry into wages and hours at all. They have sufficient data that will enable them to decide?"

An HON. MEMBER: So they have!

Mr. EDWARDS: The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister comes here and, epitomising the data in possession of the Government, says, as he is instructed, that the Government has not the economic means to do those very things that are being demanded. If that be so, I fail to understand the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party. He must either take the view that the Premier is misleading the House or that those for whom he is speaking are in the wrong, and that the Government, acting upon the data in their possession, must definitely turn down the claims of the men. It seems to me there is no other logical alternative for the right hon. Gentleman. He says that this inquiry will hang up the
case; that there is sufficient data in the hands of the Government. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made a case to the House, or sought to make a case, that the miners have an overwhelming right to a higher standard of living; that the miners have an overwhelming right to shorter hours; that they have an overwhelming right to larger and better social conditions. None of these propositions is at all in question. We agree absolutely and entirely with every sentiment that he has uttered in respect to that claim. But the short point is this: If that claim is right, and if the circumstances of the trade will permit, there is no question about their having what they ask. May I put this to the hon. Member, who has a very great influence both by his voice and his writings amongst the men of the South Wales coalfields—he has a very admirable way of expressing himself. He has an influence that may be developed for great good in that coalfield. May I suggest to him that in putting the case that he has put to-day he has only put one aspect of it? It is perfectly true about this vast prosperity of the great soulless companies in the great South Wales coalfields—perfectly true! But is it the whole truth?

Mr. HARTSHORN: Nearly.

Mr. EDWARDS: There is a margin. I shall not worry the hon. Gentleman more than I worried him and his colleague when they were speaking, but I should like him to tell the House what the margin left over from "nearly" is, because it seems to me that that is the vital factor. I mean there are certain considerations, and I put this as an argument in favour of a little extra time by the miners of the South Wales coalfields to consider, in connection with this proposition, whether, in the fiery pits, they are prepared to have three shifts of six hours in the twenty-four? Have they considered in connection with the increased wages whether they are prepared to accept that? Also the proposition from bodies of the coal owners that there shall be concentration of production? When it was proposed for the purpose of combing-out during recruiting the miners of South Wales were definitely opposed to the principle that there should be concentration of production in certain collieries. I am not saying that they are wrong. I am not saying that they are right. All I say is that time ought to be given, in their own interests, and for the sake of their
future livelihood, for these matters to be thrashed out. If the case which is being made for the miners is right and sound there cannot be a particle of risk or loss to them in waiting for an additional sixteen days to enable the proposed Commission to report. If it is not right or sound, and they proceed as seems likely, the leaders of the colliers in this country will have brought ruin and damnation to that great industry. I warn them about it. The hon. Gentleman opposite says glibly as he would from a platform: "If the trade cannot stand 30 per cent. increase in wages, well then, let the trade go." Is that what he really means?

Mr. HARTSHORN: What I did say was: if we cannot get an improvement represented by 30 per cent. we may as well admit that progress is impossible for the workmen of this country.

Mr. EDWARDS: That is sufficient for my purpose, but I thought the hon. Member went a good deal further. The point is this: What blind folly for a man to set himself up as a great leader of labour and to say this cannot be done! Why not wait the additional fortnight to see whether it can be done. I would appeal earnestly to hon. Members, and to the hon. Member who has just spoken, instead of talking in this way with a sort of distant covert threat of what the men may do, to join hands in the great, bold, plucky, courageous appeal of the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of the South Wales Miners' Federation, who has no scruple in going against his executive and making an overwhelming appeal for the men to be patient and to give time for the consideration of their claims. I hope that yet better counsels will prevail, and that the Labour party, standing there meanwhile on behalf of organised labour, will see that the attitude that the Government have taken up is not only the right attitude, which they should accept without qualification, but that they should also use their great influence in the country to appeal to the men to wait peacefully till 31st March.

The PRIME MINISTER: I would make an appeal now to the House to allow the Bill to be introduced. The Debate can still go forward on the Second Reading, but the advantage of the proposal I put forward to the House of Commons is that Mr. Speaker will give the necessary instructions for the Bill to be placed in the Vote Office. Every Member can then have
a copy of the Bill itself. There will be the advantage of the Debate on the Bill proceeding with the Bill in the hands of the Members.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Prime Minister, Mr. Bonar Law, and Mr. Shortt.

COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION BILL,

"to constitute a Commission to inquire into the position of and conditions prevailing in the Coal Industry."

Presented accordingly; read the first time, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[The prime Minister.]

Mr. RICHARDS: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words,
this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which leaves to the consideration of a Commission of Inquiry the principle of the nationalisation of coal mines, and which, by instituting an inquiry to secure information already in the possession of the Government, will incur unnecessary delay in settling the claims of the workers in and about the coal mines for an increase of wages and a reduction in working hours.
I regret very much the necessity for having to move this Amendment. My right hon. Friend below the Gangway has referred to my advice to the miners to vote against the strike. I want to make this personal observation only: That the advice against the strike that I tendered was not to be taken as advice in favour of the setting up of this Commission. I make no doubt about it that on the merits of the claims of the miners I am at one with all the other leaders. I must say I should have much preferred it, and I think that this House would have been in a better position to discuss this question had that ballot not been taken, and were the fears of a strike of all the miners in this country not obsessing us. It obsesses me—I have no hesitation in making that admission at once: the contemplation of a strike of the whole of the miners of the country at this time is to me an appalling one. The Prime Minister devoted the greater part of his excellent speech upon this subject to depicting the calamity that would overtake the country were the miners to cease work. In my opinion, now that this
ballot has been taken, now that the miners are going to do what they have said in the prosecution of their claims, the greater calamity is that this House and the Government are going to permit this stoppage to take place. Hence, I ask the Government, on behalf of my confreres of the Miners' Federation, and all those who are interested in this subject, to at least deal with the question of hours and wages at once. We are quite willing that the subject of the nationalisation of the mines, if the principle is once admitted, shall subsequently have full discussion. I was very much struck by the Prime Minister asking us not to prejudice the case, but let it go fully into the hands of this Commission to be inquired into. I was very much disappointed also to find that practically the whole burden of the Prime Minister's speech was prejudging the situation. He told us in no uncertain terms that he had been informed that the terms the miners were seeking were going to put 8s. per ton on the price of coal, and he also stated that if wages were increased and the hours were reduced as asked for by the miners it would add 10 per cent. to the cost of the production of steel, and he said it would cripple our shipping and our exports and bring national disaster to the country. Where did the right hon. Gentleman get those figures? Where did they come from, and why were they not given to the Miners' Federation so that they might have been dealt with in time? Now we are asked to take a Commission. Perhaps all these statements may be shown to be wrong. Those figures must have been provided by the coal-owners because they could not have been secured from any other source, and they ought to have been given to us if they were in the possession of the Government. Application was made a long time ago for the figures and the Prime Minister has been informed of that application, and we ought to have had them in order to examine them. There is no necessity for us to go before a special Commission to prove that even this 8s. a ton is not going to be so calamitous as the right hon. Gentleman says it is. The right hon. Gentleman has opportunities himself of knowing what will happen if the Government do to-day what I am afraid the Coal Controller did during the War—that is, simply see that the owners of the coal industry are secured their pre-war profits and conditions, and insist upon that being
the bedrock of anything they do. If they do, then these calamities will overtake the nation.
The Prime Minister has told us how this 8s. is to be met. He said the cost of coal at the pithead is 18s. per ton. I have just asked what one of the attendants in the Library was paying for coal in London, and he said 48s. 6d. per ton. I say to the Prime Minister that all those inquiries ought to have been made before, and the difference between the 18s. per ton and the 48s. 6d. ought to have been in the possession of the Government who have set up a Coal Control. I am not at all astonished at the Prime Minister having been led into trotting out that old wheeze about Pocahontas. We have had that story in South Wales for the last twenty years, and I remember a great many years ago Lord Rhondda once treated us to a two hours' oration upon the calamities that were going to overtake the South Wales coal trade because of competition with Pocahontas on the Continent. We were rather startled, and a Commission was set up to inquire into the competition with Pocahontas in Europe. That Commission was set up, and my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Brace) and myself were upon it. We made our perambulations on the Continent, secured all the information, and we came home. That was in 1892, and from that moment we have not heard the term "Pocahontas" used until I heard it to-day. Really I was very much amused by the Prime Minister being led by his Friends into such a hole as that, for that coal cannot be sold at anything like the price of South Wales coal under ordinary conditions in any part of the world. The Prime Minister warned us not to cite particular colliery companies, and he said we must take the whole trade. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman has come across this interesting paragraph about colliery companies in the Press this morning:
Coal-producing companies' accounts are of special topical interest at the moment. The Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company, which has an issued share capital of nearly £2,500,000 sterling, has earned a net profit of £529,198, against £521,744 for the preceding year. It has to pay on an increased capital, however, owing to the capitalisation of part of its general reserve. The rate of dividend is, therefore, reduced from 20 to 15 per cent., free of tax. Fifteen per cent. is really equivalent to twenty if this capitalisation of reserves be taken into account. The rate of 20 per cent. has been maintained throughout the War. For 1913 a bonus of 50 per cent. was paid in addition.
That concerns not one colliery, but a large group, and I am sure that the colliery-owners who sit behind the Prime Minister would not ask him to cite this kind of case. Nevertheless, it is the kind of case that makes the miner discontented. I have been long enough in this House to hear that in every Debate when better social conditions are asked for we have been told that they depend upon vested capital. I have always heard the poor small investor trotted out and the widow, especially the poor widow with her investments. I want to say quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, that £1,000 invested by a widow or anybody else in the industrial affairs of this country ought not to bring them in the same return as the labour of a man who works from January to December, and that is what this 20 per cent. dividend means. A £1,000 brings to the shareholder as much money as the collier who has gone on from January to December, in face of all the risks he has to endure during the year, and that is a kind of thing that the miners of this country are not prepared to submit to a Commission. The miners say that this money has a false value, and it will have to be changed before you get rid of the unrest amongst the miners.
You may say that 20 per cent. is a small return on capital, but when it is compared with the earnings of the man who earns the capital it is a very great return. We are not prepared, as far as South Wales miners are concerned, to accept £1,000 as being the value of a miner's work from January to December. It means that a man may sit down at home and write a cheque for £l,000 and he gets the same return as the man who works for a whole year. We have these men living side by side in the same street. One man who has £1,000 invested gets £200 interest; the other man has to get up at four or five o'clock every morning and return at five or six o'clock in the evening all the year round in order to produce this wealth, and he only gets the same pay as the other. This country will have to realise that if this unrest is to be allayed that the pay must be for the services rendered to the State and the country. It must be services rendered, and the rates must not be settled differently because one is capital and the other is labour. We are now discussing this question without certain information. The Government themselves chose the method of giving us advances in wages in
South Wales. We have had machinery which decided the advances in wages, and they took place after an advance in the selling price of coal, and not as the coal-owners of South Wales have attempted to mislead everybody by saying that the price of coal has been driven up by increases in wages. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that that is a false statement which has been put in print and circulated. Increases in wages have always followed in South Wales, both before and after the War, upon increases in the price of coal, and they have been based upon these prices. You had this question at the time examined both by owners and workmen, and automatically wages were fixed in this way. If it was found there had been an advance in the price of coal, then there was an advance in wages, and if it was found there had been a reduction there was a reduction in wages.
Since the appointment of the Coal Controller—if I am in order I would like to say that I deeply regret his death, because I think he performed a very difficult task in a very able manner—we were surprised to find that 4s. per ton had been taken by the Government for the purpose of paying more wages, and that was all right so far as it went. We were told that that 4s. had been taken by the Government to meet the expenses and pay increased wages on account of the War. That was all right so far as it went, but we thought that we were entitled to know how that 4s. was distributed. I myself wrote an application to the President of the Board of Trade telling him that we had been informed that 4s. had been taken by the Government, and that we wanted to know what they were doing with it, because we had never asked for any increase unless there had been an increase in price. We were politely referred to the Coal Controller, and that is all we know. All that information respecting the 4s. ought to have been in the hands of the miners when they were formulating their claim. It would have enabled them to know how far their claim for a 30 per cent. increase was justified in the circumstances. I want to urge upon the Government at least to remove this question of hours and wages from the scope of this Commission, and I want to urge the Prime Minister not to be frightened by alarmists who have in vested their capital in this concern. We have heard all this before. We have heard it every time that there has been any
improvement suggested. I have listened to the speeches of my hon. Friend opposite many times. Was it compensation? Was it the Eight Hours Act? It was always said that any improvement in the mines was going to bring calamity and destruction to the coal trade.

Sir J. WALTON: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is referring to me, but during the last twenty-one years I have strongly advocated every change proposed in this House for the benefit of the coal-miners.

Mr. RICHARDS: I did not mean my hon. Friend's speeches, but the speeches of his friends.

Sir J. WALTON: Do not put the responsibility for my friends' speeches upon me.

Mr. RICHARDS: Unfortunately, I did not hear my hon. Friend's speech to-day, and I do not know what attitude he took up, but I withdraw anything that I have said referring to him personally. I move this Amendment because I believe whatever evil will ensue from the granting of these conditions to the miners—there will no doubt be difficulties in changing from eight hours to six, and as the result of an increase of 30 per cent. in wages—the difficulties will be very much less than the difficulties that will exist if we get a stoppage of the mines of the country. The Prime Minister told us that they had made an exception of the miners in demobilisation. Yes, and that exception has created the difficulty. The miners were faced with that fact, and they were obliged to go to the Government and ask for some better conditions for the men. The men were demobilised at a much faster rate than the colliery owners were prepared to give them employment. It is not our fault. Miners were sent home, and scores and hundreds assembled at the pits every day asking for work. These men who had been fighting our battles so graphically described by the Prime Minister, who had been fighting to save our country, were demobilised because an increased quantity of coal was wanted, and day after day they were told by the colliery manager that there was no work for them. When we complained to the colliery owners they blamed the Government. I do not think either the Government or the Coal Controller are to blame. They had to exert all their energies and to use all the men at their disposal to get the
coal. But a colliery is not like a factory or a shop, where you can lock up any department and unlock it when you are ready to start again. If you reduce your area of working in a colliery, it takes a considerable time to restart working that area. Hence the difficulty. We were faced with the fact that large bodies of men had come home and could not get work and were entitled to better conditions. Even if it meant depriving us of some luxury in life we thought that these men ought to be given decent wages while waiting for employment.
The other day the Leader of the House told us that working men were thinking because we were able to spend £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 per day on the prosecution of the War that there was plenty of money for everybody in the country. I do not think that the working people think that at all. He said: "You must remember that it was borrowed money." We do remember that it was borrowed money, and the astonishment of the working people of this country is that it was there to borrow. They say: "How has that money accumulated? It has accumulated because of bad conditions of employment, because of low wages, because of rack rents for slums. That is how these great sums of money have accumulated. The Prime Minister and everybody else tells us that we have fought and beaten the Germans, that the men who performed that great task have an interest and a stake in the country, and that the country now is to be made fit for heroes to live in. This is the translation of the miners of that promise into fact. They say: "If you are going to make it fit for us to live in, you must reduce our hours to six per day, and you must give us wages which will not only keep our families and wives in. decency while we are working, but which will enable us to put by a small amount for the days when we shall be unable to work at all. I move this Amendment in the hope that the Prime Minister will reconsider taking this question of hours and wages out of the scope of the Commission. By all means set up your Commission to consider what is to be done with this great national industry, and take it out of the hands of people who have no more right to it than either I or the Prime Minister.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: My only excuse as a new Member for rising so early in this Session to address the House is that I cannot admit the claim of hon.
Gentlemen opposite to be the sole representatives of Welsh miners. I have been sent here by a very large section of Welsh miners to represent them in this House. I had as my opponent no less a personage than the secretary of the North Wales Miners' Federation. The programme of my opponent included nationalisation of the mines and rushing the Government into extreme measures without giving them a proper chance to consider what those measures should be, not only in the interests of the miners but also in the interests of the community at large. My standpoint was that I should come here to support a Coalition Government to adopt moderate measures of reconstruction, and to give the Government a chance to consider the work of reconstruction in all its aspects. The verdict of the North Wales Miners' Federation was absolutely in favour of the recommendations which I placed before them. I wax returned here with a majority of no less than 14,000. I received a poll of 20,000, and 95 per cent. were working men, the large proportion of that 95 per cent. being North Wales coal-miners. I say—and I shall be brought to account if I am misrepresenting the views of my Constituents—that the miners of North Wales are in favour of the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister. I am perfectly certain, if I went down to my Constituents and asked for a vote, that I should have an overwhelming majority again to come here and support the Government on that issue.
I am not prepared to say that the lot of the miner is a happy one. I know from personal contact with them that their lot is a very unhappy one, and I am perfectly convinced that the Commission which is about to be set up will find that the demands of the miners which are now being put forward, as far as wages and hours are concerned, are just demands. Having studied the question in North Wales, I am personally in favour of a six-hours' day for the miners, and of a 30 per cent. increase in their wages; but I do say, and I am perfectly certain that I am speaking for the North Wales miner, that they believe it is only reasonable for this matter to be thoroughly investigated. It is only reasonable to give the Government, who have had such heavy responsibilities in carrying on this War, a fair chance to investigate the claims of these miners from every possible standpoint. I submit that
it is monstrous for hon. Gentlemen opposite to come here and say that these poor wretched miners, who have suffered injustices for all these years, cannot wait another fortnight. It is really ludicrous, and I say on behalf of the North Wales miners—I am entitled to echo their voice—that they are in favour of giving the present Government every possible facility to inquire into their case, because they know, and I know, that the demands which they put forward are just and reasonable demands.
I am not in favour of nationalisation. I do not believe that it would be for the good of the country or for the miners. I do not believe in handing over the interests of the miners to a State Department, which has no soul. I deprecate State control of anything. As a business man, I advocate joint control by miners and capitalists. The root of all this evil of labour unrest is the suspicion that the miners have that they are not getting a fair share of the profits of the industry. What we want to do is to be perfectly honest and straight with the workpeople. Let the employers and the capitalists put their cards on the table. Let the workmen really see what the profits are. I have never yet come across an honest British working man who is not in favour of allowing capital a fair return. I have never heard a working man outside the Bolshevists saying that capital must not have a fair return. But what they do say, and what they are justified in saying, is "We cannot live on a pittance of £2 per week year in and year out, and go on increasing the output for the benefit of the Chinese and Japanese. What we want is to have some of these good things for our own use." If you want increased production in this country you must give the working man in this country an inducement for increased production. You must let him feel that if he puts his back and energy into his work at the end of twelve months he will be better off than he was at the beginning. Every capitalist feels that he ought to be better off at the end of twelve months than at the beginning. But how many working men are better off? It is the humdrum existence, the sameness, the same wage week in week out, month in and month out, without any change and regardless of the work the man puts in. In conclusion may I urge that the miners of Wales are not unanimous in support of the demands put forward by hon. Members opposite, and, speaking for the North Wales miners, I
assert that they are fully and completely in sympathy with giving the Government every possible facility for inquiry into their case.

Mr. CAIRNS: I ask the indulgence of the House towards me in my maiden speech like everybody else. I want to support the nationalisation of the mines. We have got a mandate from our people for that. I do not put it forward from any selfish standpoint, but I claim that it would be in the best and highest interests of the nation. If the mines were nationalised it would do away with the system now in operation of leaving what we call, in mining language, barrier coal.
I have a colliery in my mind now where there are 21 feet of coal in six seams—21 feet in depth and about 15 feet across—and all that coal has to be left in for a distance of four miles. We have got something like eighty collieries where similar barriers have to be left in in the county of Northumberland. Yet we have the present Prime Minister lecturing us about the saving of coal. It has been estimated that in Northumberland alone no less than 20 millions of tons of coal is thus lost, and in other counties there are even larger quantities, and this coal will be absolutely lost, although it is the richest of our mineral products and better than gold mines. It is, in fact, the life of this nation. But under the present system it is being lost.
Now I come to the question of the six-hour day. In the 70's we had a six-hour day in the counties of Northumberland and Durham. The average net price of coal then was 12s. 6d., and of the best qualities 18s. To-day our best qualities are quoted on the market at 90s., or five times as much, and yet we are told we cannot have a six-hour day! I was pleased to hear the hon. Member opposite say that he was in favour of the six-hour day. Twenty-five per cent. of the colliers in Northumberland to-day have a seven-hour day. Think of the conditions under which the men work. Why, if a miner were to appear in the public streets in the condition in which he has to do his work, divested of all his clothing except a small portion, he would at once be arrested. Can anyone begrudge these men a six-hour day. No sane man would do it. When you sit at home on such cold winter nights as we have re-
cently had and inhale the genial warmth sent out by the coal fire, do you ever remember the men who are finding that coal for you? Some are being killed, some are being maimed for life, and how are they being treated by the richest country in the world? I am not a Bolshevist. I did some recruiting during the War. I am a constitutionalist. I do not want a strike. But I do want these things remedied. There are some men who can work a full day on their jobs on which it is only possible to work four hours at a time. The man at the crossings on duty four hours at a time cannot stand it much longer. The man at work on the coal face cannot stand it longer. The best of coal hewers die or are broken down at forty-five years of age. The best man to-day may be among the worst to-morrow.
The Premier told us he had been informed that the miners were earning £4 a week. I am financial secretary to the Northumberland miners, and the wages are sent in to me of some forty thousand miners. Remember that the coal-getters represent only about one-fourth of the mining community. Their wages come out at 14s. per day, plus 3s. war bonus. But they do not get that to take home to their wives. There are deductions made in respect of some twenty-two items of expenditure. In regard to the support of charitable institutions the miners are among the most generous men in the world. Deductions are made from their wages for that purpose; also for the maintenance of their trade unions. Remember how many Northumberland miners went to the front. There were forty-nine battalions of the Northumberland Fusiliers, who were well known on the battlefield. Among them were a hundred of my own blood relations. They have nearly all come back. I wish all had. But let it be remembered that some 50,000 or 60,000 of our men are lying dead on the battlefield. Why should not those who have come back be in as good a position as those who have remained at home earning good wages? It has been my business to deal with the wages of miners during a period of twenty-five years. I can give the cases of men who have to work in 2 ft. of coal. Which of you could do if? Do you begrudge such men £1 a day fox doing work such as that—for working in a seam with the rain percolating through upon them. I support the full
programme which has been put forward on their behalf. I support the 30 per cent. rise. Do not run away with the idea that all the men are getting these high wages. There are classes who get 4s. per day, plus 120 per cent., which means 8s. 9d. Others have 3s. a day, which with the added percentage is brought up to 7s. 1d. The great bulk are by no means getting 16s., 17s., or £1 a day. I do not know who has given the Prime Minister the information. At any rate, I would welcome an inquiry on that point. In such an inquiry we should have something we never had before. Many times we have demanded to be told the selling prices and the profits of the coal industry. That information has always been refused. I know there are some mines which have been paying 50 per cent. during the War. That means that they paid 45 per cent. before the War, and the Government have allowed them the extra 5 per cent. I am grateful to the House for having given me the opportunity of addressing it on this occasion and for having listened to me so patiently.

Colonel Sir ROBERT WILLIAMS: May I intrude for a few minutes on the attention of the House in order to refer to another point of view? We have been given the points of view of the Government and of the miners. May I say a word on behalf of the general public outside? Will the House recollect that the whole community is threatened with a most serious position—perhaps the most difficult position—our mercantile position? We are threatened with a stoppage of coal, which would have results upon our trade and upon our national prosperity which are quite incalculable. The hon. Member who last spoke (Mr. Cairns)—and I desire to congratulate him on his maiden speech—talked just now of our sitting round the warm fire and not thinking of the coal-getter. I wonder if it is realised that during the winter there have been many homes without any fires because of the shortage of coal, and that there are thousands upon thousands of people who are paying 120 per cent. increase upon their food but whose income has decreased instead of increased, because they have got a fixed income?

An HON. MEMBER: Whose fault was that?

7.0 P.M.

Sir R. WILLIAMS: I am not talking about the fault, but about the fact. I do not impute fault to anybody, but I want that fact remembered. Anybody who takes an interest—not merely a sectional interest in the well-being of the country—knows it is perfectly true that people were brought very nearly to starvation, and in many houses to a fire a week. Remember this, the coal-miners have always had their full supply of coal all through the War, but I know many houses in London that have had a fire a week; not even once a day, but once a week, because there was a shortage of coal I want these facts to be borne in mind, that is all. That is something of the view of the public. We are threatened with this. The miners go to the Government with a certain statement. The Government have met them with what seems to the outside public to be a perfectly fair proposition. The public does not want ex parte statements on the side of the Government or of the miners; it can take the statements on both sides. But it does want an opportunity of coming to a fair judgment and of knowing just what the real state of the case is. Take nationalisation. It is the public which has got to settle the question of nationalisation; it is the people who will pay for it. And to ask that the people of the country should give nationalisation of the mines on the demand of one section of the community—I quite grant that that section of the community will include a great many people besides the miners—without a real, full, open discussion is—I do not like to say monstrous—but it really is not common sense to think that you can ask a great business nation to take a great business step of that sort without fair information.
The position is this: that the miners want their demand granted by the 15th of March. The Government say, "Let us have a tribunal to get the fullest information we can obtain by the 31st of March." I understand there are hon. Members in this House who are prepared to vote against that, and to put the country to all the horrors of a strike which the miners, in honour to themselves, are bound to bring forward after the threat that they have made, and who are prepared, for the sake of a fortnight, to put the public to inconvenience, to place many
invalids and aged people in great danger, and to put the nation generally into a very serious commercial position. I do not believe that that can be the case, and it is hard to believe, when we remember that every section of this House has been returned pledged up to the hilt to support the Prime Minister's programme in regard to housing and health. We are now keeping the Ministry of Health Bill out of the way. This measure might very well have taken the whole of this evening, and the time would have been profitably spent upon a real item of national reform. Yet we cannot get this Bill through its stages—we have been three hours on it—to enable the Prime Minister to keep the pledge he made to the miners. I do hope that both the Government and the representatives of the party opposite, and the House generally, will agree that we might really let this Bill go through, with all its consequences, and get on to the work we want to do.

Mr. J. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, unlike most people, I am not so very well pleased that I have caught your eye, but I was bound to get up and voice the opinions of Scottish miners, and I was the more bound to get up because of the first note of acrimony which was introduced into the Debate by an hon. Member who is not now present, but who sat in a corner below the Gangway. He asked us: Were we honest? and by implication he said that the leaders of the miners were not trying to keep back the catastrophe that is about to overtake the country, but were rather inciting them to strike. Now, anybody who has followed closely the history of our country during the last four and a half years is bound to admit that the leaders of the miners did everything in their power to keep every man at work during a time of stress and storm to the nation. I am not going to repeat, what everybody knows, how many men were sent, and how many of our kith and kin, the very nearest of them, he watering or enriching the battlefields of Flanders and of France. I am not going to recount anything of these things, because every hon. Members knows them; but I want to say to the House that the miners' leaders have done everything that is consistent as men, as leaders, and as responsible citizens of the nation. This is not a new thing. The question was
asked as to what was done to bring about this vote. I should have thought that the hon. Member who spoke, coming, as I understand, from a coal district, would have known all about the procedure which occurred before we arrived at a stage such as this. Why, as far back as last August, at our Scottish annual meeting in Edinburgh, we did not ask for a 30 per cent., but we asked, for a 50 per cent. It was a 50 per cent. that our Scottish miners said we required in order that we might be in the same position as we were prior to the War. That was discussed long before it came to Edinburgh in the county board meetings, and even before it reached the county board it had to be discussed, at what we in Scotland call our branch meetings. Every one of our men was determined that the time had arrived when a large increase was due to them, because not only of the increased cost of living, but because of the kind of work they were performing, and that they were entitled to some recognition from the State. The hon. Member opposite (Sir R. Thomas) says that he comes here as representing a large number of Welsh miners. I am afraid if he had told the miners that he was going to vote against an immediate decision on the 30 per cent. increase and on the six hours a day he would not have been a Member of this House to-night.

Sir R. THOMAS: I beg to point out that I never did say that I was going to vote against six hours or against the 30 per cent. I distinctly said I was in favour of that, but that I was going to support the Government over this inquiry, which I think is only perfectly fair and which my Constituents think is perfectly fair.

Mr. BROWN: Which will practically mean the same thing as far as the catastrophe is concerned. What most Members won the election on was the promise to us of a new Heaven and a new earth, and very much better conditions under the earth. We, who work under the earth, are going to try to claim those better conditions now that they are coming before this honourable House. Let the House think what the miner has to undergo. The Prime Minister has already stated the adverse conditions under which he works and lives, and he admits that those conditions have given
cause for a great deal of the discontent which has arisen throughout the country. I think we are entitled to claim this 30 per cent. and six hours a day. If the country and this House knew what a six hours working day really meant, I am perfectly sure that they would need no inquiry whatever. In Scotland, it will mean, in a great many instances, eight hours a day, and if we had gone to the country and said that we were claiming an eight hours day from bank to bank, I dare say every Member of this House tonight would have said it was a fair and a reasonable proposition. That is all we are claiming. A six hours working day means that men may be underground from seven to eight hours per day. That is to say, we get the six hours on the same method that we got our eight hours, and you must not imagine that it is so easy for a miner, as soon as he has got down the pit, to got to his work as it is for an ordinary tradesman travelling to his occupation. For men getting on in life, for a man like myself, who has not so long ago left the mine, it was the worst part of the day's work to get to the workings. If hon. Members will remember that, I do not think there will be any difficulty at all in their at once supporting this Amendment to eliminate the wages and the hours question from the Resolution before the House.
I want to impress upon the House that we are not willing to take the blame for anything that may occur from the refusal of this reasonable Amendment. We have heard of the horrors that will accrue from a national stoppage of the coal pits. I perfectly agree that there will probably be disaster following a na-nional stoppage of the coal miners, but we do not want to take that blame. If, on the one hand, it is said, "Why not wait a fortnight?" we say, on the other hand, "Why not concede these two points, and give yourselves leisure to examine the question of the nationalisation of the mines and the question regarding the demobilised men and the wages they are to get?" On every count, I think the Mover of the Amendment has made out his case. I think, taking the willingness of the miners all through the War, even to allow themselves to be set aside occasionally so that the country might not be embarrassed by stoppages of any kind; taking into account that we gave the men, and that very often, against the
wishes of the men, we kept them at work in order that the Government might defeat our enemies—taking all these things into account, I think it would be unreasonable not to expect this House to accept this Amendment to get rid of the hours and wages question and to give the Leader of the Opposition the promise that the principle of nationalisation will be conceded. Then everyone of us will be quite willing, and indeed happy, to have this investigation set on foot as quickly as possible. I would plead with all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of this House to think once and twice before they refuse this Amendment, because this is not a leader's movement; it is a men's movement. After the last conference at Southport, when I reached my home in Ayrshire, I discovered that some thousands of men had been idle the day previously, and when I asked the reason they said they stopped "to protest against the undue delay which you leaders are putting upon us." I also ask the House to remember that during the unhappy trouble in Glasgow a short time ago—I am a constitutionalist, and I wish everything to be done constitutionally, and have no desire to see my country in any danger at all; I would rather forego anything that would cause trouble to my country—we had unconstitutional methods thrust upon us. We refused to accept those methods, and we issued manifestoes warning our men that they were to keep at work, because we would not tolerate any unconstitutional methods. But we did that, and the men obeyed us, knowing that this claim had been before the country so long, and in the faith that, seeing that the cost of living had risen so much, and that the miners were entitled to a fuller, higher, better, and a more leisured life, and that they were entitled to a shorter working day, there would be very little doubt when the time came that large concessions would be given to us. That was the reason we were able to keep these men at work. I trust that this Amendment will be accepted by the House so that all difficulty may vanish for the time being, and that then this Commission may be set to work to investigate the highly important matters of nationalisation and demobilisation. I hope they will accept this Amendment, because I am afraid—I am not threatening at all—that, in spite of anything we might do, the strike will occur. The figures speak for themselves. The figures are there, and they prove to this House
and to me that nothing short of this concession from the Government will be able to prevent what, in the opinion of all of us, will be a calamity for the nation.

Lieutenant-Colonel A. C. MURRAY: I am sure the House will desire to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on his very able maiden contribution to our Debates. The view expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Dorset (Colonel Sir R. Williams) should be emphasised. I have listened very carefully to the speeches made, on the one hand, by the Government, and, on the other hand, by representatives of the miners. Hon. Gentlemen sitting above the Gangway have put before the House a very moving appeal regarding the hours, wages, and conditions of labour under which the miners of this country work. I do not wish in any way to combat the arguments they have put forward. There may be every justification for the appeal they have made, but it seems to me that the very special conditions under which the Debate is taking place have been forgotten. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway suggest that, if the demands they make are not met by the Government, on the 15th March there will be a national miners' strike. Surely there are special reasons why that strike should not take place. There are reasons which to-day are quite different from those which obtained in peace why they should be willing at least to delay the strike until the Commission which the Government propose to set up has made its inquiry into the question of wages, hours, and so on. At the present moment prices are high. War conditions still obtain. We have won the War, but we have not yet won the Peace. The fear of strikes prevents trade resuming its ordinary channels, and there seems to be every reason why the miners should continue to show what they have done during the War that sense of patriotism which has led them to put forth their whole effort into the War during the last four and a half years. As a member of the public and as representing a constituency which views this matter solely from the consumers' standpoint, I feel that the public will say that the Miners' Association has put forward no reason to-night why this strike should take place before the Commission of Inquiry is set up. I submit that view very strongly to the
House, and I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway that, in view of the special War conditions, from which we have not yet emerged, they should reconsider the attitude they have taken up and grant the Bill which is necessary in order that this inquiry should take place.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The last appeal made by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieutenant-Colonel A. C. Murray) only shows how difficult it is for hon. Members to appreciate our situation. If this issue had to be determined merely by the vote of the House or the speeches or decisions of anyone sitting in the House, then the problem would be much more simple than unfortunately it is to-day. The House must realise, whatever its view of the ballot vote may be, that that ballot vote is to-day a mandate to the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. No speeches of any kind will get over the fact that at the moment the situation is that in the clear deliberate view of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain they have a mandate that on the 15th March they will order the whole of the miners to cease work, unless their demands are conceded. That shortly is the situation. But it would be deceiving the House—I have node sire to do that—if I did not also make it perfectly clear that there are other complications. The transport workers have definitely rejected the latest offer made to them. They have definitely—I am not now arguing the wisdom of their decision, I am merely stating a fact—refused to allow the offer of forty-eight hours to go to arbitration, and my own union are at the moment in negotiation. To-morrow the triple alliance, which is composed of these three bodies, meets to determine their action. No one can minimise the seriousness of that situation. I frankly recognise that the issue as it appears to me is this: If we have on the one hand a strike of these three great bodies, it will not only paralyse industry and may not only easily ruin the country, but even if we succeed by a strike we shall have defeated the State, and that is, after all, a very serious thing which I do not minimise for a moment. On the other hand, if we lose there may easily be a period of reaction and oppression for many years to come. I know that all too well, and anyone placed in my position will not want telling that we feel very responsible in the matter.
I am not taking part in this Debate merely to make a debating point, but I want to appeal to the Government to see whether it is not possible, even now, to find some way out. The Miners' Federation, so far as their appeal is concerned, say this: "When the last strike took place we asked this House of Parliament to put into the Bill a figure which would guarantee us a definite wage. The Government said "No." Although the strike had then proceeded for weeks, let it be observed—I well remember the all-night sitting on this very point, because I took part in the Debate—the considered judgment of the Government, in which I believe the Prime Minister took part, was that it would be unwise for Parliament by legislation to fix any wage. We remember the Division we had on what was called the five and two. My point is that on that occasion the clear decision of the Government was that the adjustment of these differences by this House by legislation was the wrong method. What the miners say to-day to you is that since coal-mining has been an industry there have been means for regulating the conditions of wages, sometimes by conciliation, sometimes by arbitration, or by whatever other means may have been in existence, and we say—this is the miners'claim—that to-day, with the power of our organisation, with the organised position of the employers, and with the experience of forty years behind us, we are far better able to settle these questions than any independent body set up by this Government. That shortly is their case. I would ask the Prime Minister to remember that at the moment, and for the past eighteen months since the Coal Controller has been in power, he himself has not settled the question. Surely with the information, with the statistics and knowledge already in their possession it ought not to be impossible for the Government to say," Yes, the same machinery that for thirty years has been able to settle this question shall even settle it to-day." That is the wage question. That is the first point.
The second is the question of hours. Here, again, let the House differentiate between the claim of the miner and any other worker. Forty-eight hours is to-day the established basis in practically every industry. It is generally recognised that forty-eight hours is a fair thing. A Noble Lord, who was once a Member of this House, and is recognised as one of the
captains of industry, is going round to my branches. I understand that he was at one of my branch meetings last night—Lord Leverhulme—explaining how it was that six hours was necessary. I want you to try to visualise the minds of the working classes when they hear a great employer of labour explaining to them how even in their industry six hours is sufficient for them to work. [An Hon. Member: "Three shifts!"] My hon. Friend must know perfectly well that so far as Lord Leverhulme is concerned he has not dealt with it in shifts, because he deals with it in a general way—with all industries that do not work at night at all. No one knows better than my hon. Friend the kind of effect this has on the minds of the workers. Mere arguing as to whether the leaders are wrong is not going to get us out of this difficulty. I am more anxious to get out of the difficulty than to score in debate. If people in this position can go about saying that six hours is enough for any industry, can you for a moment conceive the position of a miner who says "At least about everyone else I am entitled to six hours."
But look at his claim from another standpoint. When oven seventy-two, sixty-six, and fifty-four were the established hours in other industries, this House recognised that eight hours were sufficient. Let the House keep clearly in mind that although you talk of six hours a day, I am informed by my mining friends that six hours actually means seven in the pit in the overwhelming number of cases. I put it to the Prime Minister whether it is not possible, even now, with the information at the Government's disposal, to say to the Miners' Federation, "Let us meet together and see whether we cannot adjust the wage difference." It may be that they will be able to give figures and facts which may destroy the claim of 30 per cent., because I am empowered to say this. In the discussion with the Triple Alliance, so far as Mr. Smillie and the whole of the leaders are concerned, they are not putting forward this claim with the ulterior motive of considering the miners alone. They are firmly convinced that their claim can only be justified on the ground of consideration to all other interests and not the miners alone. I would put that to the Prime Minister and see, even between now and March, whether there could not be, and ought not to be, a further opportunity of discussing and seeing whether
on the wages and hours claim some arrangement could be made to bridge the difficulty. If that were done, there would be no need for this aspect of the question to be considered as part of the Bill.
With regard to nationalisation, I believe the Prime Minister is committed right up to the eyes. His previous speeches on what he called these monopolies, at least indicate that his view is very clear. But the miners themselves frankly admit that there must be an investigation prior to nationalisation. Of course, no Government can be asked to boldly declare in favour of State purchase without the facts. I fully recognise that. I do not put forward a claim for nationalisation of the railways and assume that the terms that I suggest must be the terms the Government would accept. No one in his senses would do it. We have to recognise that the mere phrase "nationalisation" is not everything, because nationalisation could be made a very good thing for the owners and a very bad thing for the State. Everyone recognises that on both sides. There must be a case for investigation on that, but I am quite sure that if the Prime Minister would say clearly what his views on the question are it may tend to help the situation. In any case I think it will be a mistake to say, "Will the miners of the country, who only a few months ago fought so nobly, and they did fight nobly, risk all for sixteen days?" [An Hon. Member: "So did everyone!"] I know everyone did. I do not suggest that they fought better than anyone else. I do not think in this War there was a monopoly of virtue or courage in any class. I was rather putting the position that these men at least have proved that they are not unmindful of their responsibility to the country. Therefore, I would ask the Prime Minister not merely to say that sixteen days is the only issue between us. I would rather let him put it to us, "So far as the Government is concerned we are again prepared to meet the Miners Federation. We are going to take out of the purview of Parliament this question of hours and labour. We are open to the principle of nationalisation," and I believe whatever else this Debate will have done, if it has enabled, as it has enabled both the House and the country to hear the miners' case stated frankly and openly before the crisis comes, I think Parliament will have further
opportunities of deciding before the plunge for war is made on such a great and important issue.

The PRIME MINISTER: I rise at once in response to the appeal made by my right hon. Friend. I agree with him that it is a great advantage to the House and to the country to hear the miners' case presented by their leaders with very great ability and with great moderation, as will be acknowledged by everyone. But having listened to, I think I may say most of the speeches, if not all, the conviction has been impressed more and more upon me that the case they have made out is not a case for a decision, but a case for inquiry. Let my right hon. Friend consider the appeal he has now made to me. It is this. Do not inquire into wages, do not inquire into hours of labour, do not even inquire into what he calls the "principle of nationalisation." Make no mistake about what that means. It means that, if you accept the principle, you are committed to it. My right hon. Friend asks me what is my view? My view is that nationalisation must be considered purely as a business proposition. If as a business proposition it be better for the State, which means the community, which means everyone—if it be better for this and all other industries we ought to commit ourselves to nationalisation. But, to do it without discovering first of all whether it be good for the State on a careful investigation—no Government has a right to commit the State, not even to avert a strike, serious as it may be. A strike is temporary. If a mistake were made and we committed the State to a big undertaking of that kind, it would not be temporary. I am not prejudging; I am not speaking for it or against it. It would be unfair to do so, when you are appointing a Commission, to inquire into the matter. But that is the view of the Government.
I come now to hours and wages. My right hon. Friend says, "Meet the miners. Discuss it with them." How discuss it with them? First of all, there is no agreement as to the fundamental figures which are the basis of the negotiations. The miners say, "We have not got the figures. They are not in a position to supply us with them; the Government refuses to supply us with the figures." The Government has not the figures. The Government cannot get the figures without this inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS: Surely the same machinery and figures and data which have settled all these wages difficulties for thirty odd years are still at the disposal of both sides?

The PRIME MINISTER: But there is this difference. Up to the present the mine-owners and the miners have met and have discussed the matter. Between them they have full command of the figures. That is not the case now. This is a case where the State is meeting the miners. The miners have not the figures. The State has not the figures. Now the State says, "We mean to get the figures and to present them to the miners and the mine-owners, and we mean to get them, ourselves."

Mr. HARTSHORN: We submit that the State has them, that they are actually in the Coal Controller's Department, and when we asked for them the Coal Controller submitted the question to the Law Officers as to whether he could let us have them. He does not deny that he is in possession of the information.

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend is quite wrong. The Coal Controller's Department has not the whole of the figures. The only question put to the Law Officer, as far as I understand, was whether he had the means of forcing the coal-owners to supply these figures, but as a matter of fact he has not. A good deal of this information undoubtedly is in the possession of the Inland Revenue, but that is not put at the disposal of the Government, and never has been.

Mr. ADAMSON: Was it not found that the figures could not be supplied without a pledge of secrecy being given by the miners' executive?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that is so. There would be no object in having a special Bill to compel witnesses to attend and to produce documents if the Government could do it without a Bill. That is the whole object of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Bill, he will see that we have put in a special Clause in order to compel parties to produce documents and account-books, because we want information just as much as they do. It is impossible to come to a decision on a matter of such vital moment, not merely to the coal industry but to the whole of the industries of the
country, unless you get these facts. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas) says, "Let us renew the negotiations on imperfect knowledge." What do you gain by that? Is it not very much better that you should first of all obtain the information? My right hon. Friend says we can get it early in March. We have not said that you cannot get it before the 31st March. That is not the view we have indicated. It may very well be that when Mr. Justice Sankey has looked into the matter, and seen the dimensions of the problem what figures are available, and how long it would take to get other figures that are relevant—he might be able to give an interim Report before the 31st March.
Hon. Members may depend upon it that it is to the interest of the Government, representing the community, to have this matter out of the way as soon as possible. The mere fact of there being an impending strike, or the possibility of such a strike, especially if it is going to be complicated by another strike, is in itself a disturbing element in trade. It is impossible to get business going until these disputes are out of the way. Therefore, my hon. Friend may depend upon it that we shall do all in our power to get the Report in, not by the 31st March, but before the 31st March if that be possible. The House can depend upon it that Mr. Justice Sankey, a man of great energy as well as of great ability, will also see the importance of getting this matter settled as soon as possible. We have indicated the 31st March as the very last date. That does not mean that you will not get it before the 31st March. I am hopeful that the moment this Bill is through Mr. Justice Sankey will be able to give his attention to the matter, and when he has investigated it I shall ask him what is his view in regard to the date. Neither he nor I will be in a position to state at the present moment what is the view.
May I say how cordially I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in all that he has said about the Coal Controller (Sir Guy Calthorp). It was with the deepest regret that I heard of his death to-day. He is undoubtedly the first victim of this trouble. There is no doubt at all that it was the worry which surrounded all this trouble, and the fact that he insisted upon going on after his first attack of illness, that made it impossible for him to struggle successfully against it.
I am sure the House will agree with me that his death is a direct loss to the country.
My right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas) said there is other trouble coming. Well, it is trouble very largely of the same kind. It is a refusal to submit a dispute to any arbitrament. That is a very serious position, and the country has to face it. The country will gain nothing by purchasing temporary immunity by giving way, and the determination of the Government is to see right done as far as it can. One hon. Gentleman said that we had promised a new heaven and a new earth. If we did, we did not promise it by the 15th of March.

Mr. THOMAS: Did you promise it before the 15th December?

The PRIME MINISTER: After all, peace has not been made yet, and I am sorry to say that we are proceeding in these disputes on the assumption that all conflict is over—that it is something in the dim past. It is not. Every day questions are remitted to me from Paris which indicate that things are by no means settled. Yet, here is an insistence upon demands of a very grave character. They may be right. Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission may prove that they are right; but no one can deny that they represent an increase upon the burdens of the community, and industry will have to adapt itself to them. And all this is demanded with the threat of a strike, when we have not yet made peace with the most formidable enemy that has ever menaced the life of this country—an enemy the miners themselves made the greatest sacrifice in order to defeat. I make an appeal to the miners for patience, when the community is really doing its best to meet them. I really entreat them not to throw away in a moment of impatience the fruits of the victory which their brothers and their sons have done so much to win. I beg them above all, when this country has through its sacrifice won such a position in the world, not to destroy its influence, not to destroy its power, not to destroy its prosperity, and not to precipitate it into a great disaster purely because they cannot wait a few days for a decision by an impartial tribunal.

Mr. BRACE: No one could fail to be influenced by the powerful appeal made by my right hon. Friend. I would have him and the House to believe that the Miners' Federation of Great Britain are not
averse to submitting their case to arbitration conditional on its being made clear as to what the inquiry really means. Upon the question of wages, in fairness to the Miners Federation, it must be remembered that this application was made so far back of 9th January. Therefore, to charge the miners with impatience is really to forget the period of delay between 9th January and now. What advantage would it be to the Government to have an inquiry upon this question of 30 per cent.? No inquiry can take away the broad fact that the miners are asking for an improvement in their standard, not upon prices of cost of living, and, therefore, if the Miners Federation agree that the Government should submit this matter to a tribunal there is no data upon which the matter can be considered or tested. If it is going to be argued by the Government that the determining factor in any such inquiry is to be the effect it will have upon other industries—

The PRIME MINISTER: The effect upon other industries is a vital matter.

Mr. BRACE: And if it is found that to give the 30 per cent. advance in wages is going to increase the cost of coal that upon that a refusal is going to be given—

The PRIME MINISTER: This is really so important that I must have it clear. I do not say that if it were discovered it would increase the price of coal, that that would involve a verdict against the miners; but I do say that if it be proved that it means substantial increased cost, and that it will destroy important industries and throw hundreds of thousands of other people out of employment, that surely is a most important element.

Mr. BRACE: The right hon. Gentleman must know that the executive council of the Miners' Federation had the declaration made quite clearly to them that the Coal Controller was in possession of facts as to the price, and the other really vital points affecting the industry, but that he was unable to disclose them because it would be illegal to do so. While the Coal Controller could not disclose to the executive council of the Miners' Federation the real vital facts upon which this application will have to be determined, the Government now have in their possession, or a Department under the control of the Government, now have in their possession the full complete facts upon which this question of 30 per cent. can be settled now. We feel that the Government has
sufficient information to come to a decision as to whether this 30 per cent. is an application which ought to be granted and the Federation cannot submit to any tribunal the fundamental principles as to whether their standard of life should or should not be improved. Indeed the Federation feels that they would be guilty of a serious error of judgment, if not a betrayal of their movement, if they submitted to a tribunal the determination as to whether they should have this 30 per cent advance in their wages. Having surveyed and explored the whole situation, in their judgment they say that the 30 per cent. advance is a reasonable advance to seek, and is not too high a standard of life for these people who, as my right hon. Friend said so eloquently and powerfully: "Live lives of so grave and so dangerous a character." I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not press the submission of the question of the 30 per cent. to any tribunal. As to the distinguished judge who is to be the president of the tribunal, I believe I am echoing the sentiments of all my colleagues when I say that if the nomination lay with them, they would have selected Sir John Sankey as soon as any man in this country. He is a man in whom they have the fullest confidence. Not only is he a man of high integrity, but of very great ability.

The PRIME MINISTER: And knowledge of the trade.

Mr. BRACE: And knowledge of the subject. We do feel that to submit this 30 per cent. to the tribunal will be to lay ourselves open to a defeat upon a fundamental principle which can only be decided upon the righteousness of our claim.

Sir EDGAR JONES: It is not intended that the Commission should make the decision.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. BRACE: No. The Commission will make their Report to the Government and the Government will make their decision. My hon. Friend knows what the position of the Prime Minister would be in this House if he proposed giving to the miners the 30 per cent. if it is declared by the tribunal that the 30 per cent. is not a justifiable demand to make. It is because we feel that we should be on a slippery slope and upon entirely unsafe ground that we ask the Prime Minister not to submit this application for 30 per cent. increase to the decision of any
tribunal or that the tribunal should give a Report which would influence the decision. We make our application upon the broad ground that the industry must be advanced. I noted with very great interest that my right hon. Friend said that the 31st March is not a hard date. Is he prepared to make it the 12th of March? That is more than a fortnight away. We have our conference on Wednesday. Assuming that they will not be able to make a complete Report upon all the matters that will be referred to them, could we not have an interim Report by the 12th of March dealing with this question of wages?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am most anxious to meet my right hon. Friend. I know what a disaster it would be for the country to precipitate matters, but he must not be unreasonable. I am sure that he is the last man to be so. Let him reflect what it means. You must get all these accounts. The miners will have the power to demand the production of certain documents. They have asked for certain documents and they have not had them. Now they can get them. Those documents must be produced. They must be examined and collated. When you are dealing with a gigantic industry like this, it is an impossibility to think that it can be done so quickly. The Commission cannot be appointed until Thursday, and barely then, because we cannot make up our minds until we hear what the miners say. That will be on Wednesday. If we have got our men ready, as we shall have, it will be with difficulty that you will get a meeting of the Commission this week. How can you get all these figures examined by the Commission by the 12th of March? I am willing to do anything within reason, but when you are dealing with a concern of this magnitude you really must give fair time.

Mr. BRACE: I feel the weight of the arguments of my right hon. Friend to the utmost, but side by side with that I must ask him and the Government to realise that the 15th March is the day they have fixed as being the determining day. If we can go to our Conference on Wednesday and say to them that it is the intention of the Government to have an Interim Report upon the question of wages and hours in time to have that Report considered by a conference that must be held probably on the 13th or 14th March, that will help
us to get the Conference to see the desirability of forming part of this Commission. The Miners' Federation with all its power and strength is made up of a reasonable and conciliatory body of men, and if they find in practice through their members upon the Commission that it is physically impossible to make the inquiry and have the Report in time at which it is the intention of the Government, that would be a very good reason for the miners' representatives upon that Commission to come to the Miners' Federation Conference itself and say that it was physically impossible for it to be done. We are anxious, as my right hon. Friend said, to find a way out of this difficulty. He can be no more anxious than my colleagues and myself, and it is in order that we shall be able to report to the Conference on Wednesday that I am really asking him to enter into an undertaking to make it the 12th March. I quite understand that there may be some reason why the date should be pushed a little further off if it is physically impossible, but we should then depend upon the reports of our representatives who are members of the Commission as to the necessity of advancing the date from the 15th to some other day.
The inquiry into wages is a very simple business. The main part of the 30 per cent. is a matter than can be determined upon its merits without inquiry into figures. If it was 30 per cent. based upon the cost of living or based upon the increase in the price of coal or upon an increase in profit, that is not only an arguable matter but it is a discoverable matter. But inasmuch as it is based upon the right of these people to an uplifting of their standard of life that is a matter that needs very small inquiry and which must be determined apart from figures altogether. The question of hours is largely the same question. Is it right for miners to have a six hours day? If my right hon. Friend puts to us the proposition, "We grant you the six hour day, but we must have an inquiry for the re-organisation of the industry to meet the new order of things." I could understand that inquiry. But if the inquiry into hours is to determine whether the principle is right, then I must call to mind the fact that the miners' case for the shortening of hours must really be considered upon an entirely different standard, and that they are in an entirely
different category from any other section of the country. If that be so, where is the difficulty in giving an undertaking to have an Amendment of the Eight Hours Act by making it six instead of eight hours?
If it is a fair proposition for people who are working on the surface at less dangerous trades to have a working day of eight hours, their working day, let it not be forgotten, commences from the time they are at the factory or other place of work, whereas the miners' working day is not six but really seven. When a man goes into the pit his work does not commence from the time he takes his lamp or gets into the cage. Not at all. These men sometimes have to walk two or three or four miles. I have never understood why miners should not be paid for walking to their work in the same way as plumbers and other craftsmen are paid. If there is any hard work in the world it is walking underground, slipping over rails, tumbling over obstacles, half bent, burdened often with tools in his arms. I know of no more exhausting occupation when a man has passed fifty years of age than to have to walk three or four miles underground to his working place. As his work does not commence at the top of the shaft, he would really be working a seven hours' day on a six hours' shift, just as he is working nine or more hours on an eight hours' shift at the present time. Inasmuch as there has been a general improvement in the hours system in the case of other trades, it seems to me that the miners have an irresistible case far a six hours' day, which would mean a seven hours' working day as against an eight hours' working day on the surface. If my right hon. Friend would say, "I am prepared to concede the principle of the six hours' shift, but there must be an inquiry by a Commission for a reorganisation of the industries to meet the new system of hours," then I am certain that the Miners' Federation would take an entirely different view of an inquiry than if they were asked to submit to the inquiry of a Commission the whole principle of a six hours' day.

Sir E. JONES: And only one shift?

Mr. BRACE: That is a question to be inquired into. If my right hon. Friend proposes to inquire into that matter, the Miners' Federation would be prepared to take part in such an inquiry. Allwe want is the granting of the principle. I say the same about the nationalisation of
the mines. Grant the principle of nationalisation, and we will agree with him to have an inquiry into the reorganisation of mines. [Laughter.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but, as one of my hon. Friends said in the early part of the discussion, the nation will be driven to this, not as a Socialistic proposition but as a business proposition Under what system other than nationalisation is the Government to be in a position to deal with the mines of this country? Suppose you have a system of control, under what power and by what right are you going to interfere with what, after all, is the property of others? But if the Government wants to have the right to interfere with the control of mines in this land, then they must put themselves right by taking possession of the mines of this land, not by confiscation but by fair purchase. If my right hon. Friend says to the House of Commons, "I think the time has come when we must nationalise the mines of this country, but there remains the question of the basis on which they are to be organised with all the ramifications of this industry, and that is a matter for inquiry," I will agree and my hon. Friend will agree that that is a reasonable proposition; but when the Miners' Federation come and ask that the 30 per cent. shall be granted, if my right hon. Friend says, "No; I cannot grant that without an inquiry," then that inquiry need not be a long one. I am asking him to fix the 12th of March as the date on which an interim Report shall be presented. Then I come to the question of hours. The question is not an involved question requiring a great inquiry or long investigation. Therefore I say to him again if you cannot agree to-night to give the Miners' Federation an undertaking that we shall have a six hours' day, but that there must be an inquiry, which must be a short one, then I would ask my right hon. Friend to let us have a Report to give to the miners by the 12th of March.
We like to get as much of our own way as we can and we have been taught much by the right hon. Gentleman in that direction. I wonder sometimes whether it is not a characteristic of the race. But the Miners' Federation is not asking anything unreasonable in this case. This will enable us on Wednesday to go to our Conference and as an earnest of good faith say that the Government show that by fixing the 12th of March they do not desire to prolong this anxiety and to go over
the date which has been fixed. Bodies of men can be dealt with up to a certain point, but when they have come to a hard decision by ballot it is very difficult for the Executive Council to change that unless there are overwhelming reasons given to show that it should be changed. Our view is that we want no inquiry upon the question of wages or hours, but taking your view that you do want on inquiry, on that let us co-operate with you and give us a chance to co-operate with you by fixing the 12th of March as a date for reporting on these questions and we shall be better able to take part in the inquiry which is what my right hon. Friend wants. If the Commission finds under the presidency of Mr. Justice Sankey that the 12th March is not quite sufficient then our own members upon the Commission will come to us and say, "We must have a little more time before we can have a Report presented." That is not an unreasonable request to make.
It is because I feel so anxious that we shall as a great federation do nothing to jeopardise the welfare of the country that I make this request. No one knows better than ourselves what strikes mean or how easy it is to start a strike as it is easy to start a war, but how difficult it is to stop it. Therefore, we do not want to start one, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to give us a reasonable chance to go to our people who by ballot voted for, arriving at a hard decision that they must have this matter settled by the 15th March; and if they cannot give us the 30 per cent. or the six hours, let them undertake that the interim Report shall be made by the 12th March. That will then give us the opportunity to consider if you want more time and to consider our attitude as to the Report, and will enable us to keep faith with our people and to co-operate with the Government by sending our own men on the Commission to take part in the inquiry. I hope my right hon. Friend will not think our application is unreasonable, and that he will be able to see his way to give us the undertaking we ask.

Mr. JOHN E. SWAN: In supporting the Amendment, I make no apology for doing so. In the county from which I come, the county of Durham, there will be much discontent, and especially as far as the miners
are concerned, in not making the six-hours day from bank to bank. I have listened to the remarks of the Prime Minister in regard to the policy pursued by the Miners' Federation and the Labour party. It was suggested that if these claims are conceded they will bring irretrievable ruin to the industries of this nation. The same argument was advanced 100 years ago as a reason why women should not be taken out of the mines, and why the age for the employment of boys raised. The people were then told that those changes would mean irretrievable ruin, unemployment, and bankruptcy. But the women were taken out of the mines, and the age for the employment of boys was raised, and instead of ruin overtaking the mine-owners, greater prosperity than ever came their way. Those reforms made the lot of the miners brighter and better. I believe if the hours of labour were reduced to-day to six hours it would result in a great improvement in many ways. We have had experience of the six hours in the county of Durham, not seven from bank to bank, but six hours one shift from bank to bank. From the human standpoint it is quite sufficient. For men or boys to work in the mines longer than six hours per day is neither economic nor human. If you can get the best out of a man in six hours, why keep him in the bowels of the earth away from the light of day longer than is necessary. I submit that a man can produce as much coal in six hours, or more, other things being equal, in the county of Durham, than those who work eight or nine hours. Our experience also is that it would be more economic for the men to work the six hours. The greatest number of accidents in our county have occurred at the closing part of the miner's day's work. I make no apology either for the Labour party or for the Miners' Federation in making these claims. We think that as a minimum these claims ought to be conceded. The wages that are asked are none too much. It is only with great difficulty that we have been able to persuade many of our men to make their claim 30 per cent. of an advance instead of 50 per cent.
We want wages which will enable our men to obtain the necessaries of life after the day's work is done, and to enable them to have time and energy left for leisure, recreation, culture, and refinement. Those do not come the way of the miner to-day
because his hours are too long, and he cannot obtain the necessaries of life with the wage he receives because it is too small, and the cost of living is too high. Those that are complaining about the attitude of the Miners' Federation and their ballot and suggested strike should recollect what would have been the miner's position had it not been for strike after strike and effort after effort to get shorter hours and better wages, and greater opportunities for living and education. Our hours and position would have been worse than those of the animal. The miners are looking forward to a time when their standard of living will be justly raised higher than what it is to-day and what it was in pre-war times. We look to the future with optimism. We think that the industry can sustain this advance, and that the claims we put forward are reasonable and just. We think that our men, who have served in the Army, should not come back to find that there is no hope for them, and we think there ought to be work for every miner who is able and willing to work, and that that work should be performed under humane conditions. The ballot that has taken place is an expression and a protest against the lowness of our wages and the bad conditions which have hitherto existed. It is a protest also against the wrongs and injustices that have been imposed upon miners right through the ages. We do not intend to go back to those black, dismal days, of the past. I believe if the mines were nationalised it would be a great economic advantage to the community as a business proposition, and those who suggest that it is nonsense to talk about nationalising the mines, way leaves and royalties do not speak with any knowledge of the mining industry. We find in many of our areas that within a mile or two miles we have five collieries working with conflicting way leaves. If the mines royalties and way leaves were owned by the nation we believe that the mining could be simplified and a better system adopted and great economies effected, the hours of labour reduced, output increased, the wages of the workers increased, and at the same time you could have coal on the market in larger quantities than to-day and cheaper for the consumers. That would be accomplished by removing the element of profit and waste competition, while more scientific methods would be adopted than are possible to-day, and inventions would
operate in the mines which would make them a blessing instead of a curse to the community.
It has been suggested that we require a larger production out of the mines. Well, we agree; but we had six hours and seven hours in the county of Durham, but when machinery was introduced to accelerate and simplify production we found that eight hours was imposed upon the men who had to follow the coal-cutting machines, although the output was increased, and the only remuneration as an extra which they got was 4d. per shift. What does it matter to the minor or to the consumer whether or not machinery is introduced? There is no legitimate guarantee, if a scientific system is adopted in the mines, either that the consumer will get his coal cheaper or that the miner will be paid better wages. That will only come in so far as the mines are owned by the nation and worked by the nation for the benefit of the nation. If the mines were nationalised we should get better wages, so that we might have a chance as mine workers to live in better houses than is possible to-day, when we have to live in slums unfit for habitation. We want better wages, and the minimum which is put there is what we require. It is suggested that a strike would be disastrous. We do not want a strike. We think these things ought to be given to us without going to an arbitrator, because they are the minimum demands that ought to be conceded to us. We want our children to have better opportunities for education. Amongst the children of miners are those who are richly endowed by nature with wonderful artistic and scientific powers and natural ability, but because of the lack of a general system of education, and because the wages of the miners are not sufficient, they are dragged away from school and placed into the mines and elsewhere because the demands of the household have increased, and we suggest that if better wages were paid our children would get better opportunities to-day. They are placed to work without any corresponding benefit to the community, nor have the children any aptitude for the work, and they are soon reduced below the line of mediocrity. We hope these concessions will be made to the mine workers, so that it will not be imputed that they are overworked and underpaid any longer, and, if there is any meaning in that statement, then these concessions ought to be made. If they are, I have no
fear but that greater progress will be made in the country. If they are not conceded, we can expect stagnation. Concede them, and greater progress will be made by the miners, and under healthier and happier conditions mankind will rise to a higher plane than is possible to-day. I hope these concessions will be given in the interests of the miners and the whole community.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: As I am one of the few Members who are coal-owners, and no owners have spoken up to the present, it is just as well to put forward one's views. I am very puzzled still to know what are the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Do they say they will have a strike under any circumstances if they do not get what they want on the 15th? Do they say that unless we consent to nationalisation they will have a strike, or what is the object of having the inquiry if their views are to be carried out? Listening to them, it appeared to me very much as if they said to the Government—and coming from a Scotsman I quite understood it—"Give us the whisky, and then have the Commission to ascertain whether we are to drink any water with it at the end of the time." Apparently the miners who have spoken all want exactly what they demand. There is to be no reduction of any of their demands, and the inquiry that the House is asked to accept seems to my mind a miserable delusion, because it is not to lead to anything. There are two points in connection with this inquiry that want looking at. The first is the point of the sale and distribution—that is to say, the wages and the shorter hours. So far as the owners are concerned, of course if the Coal Controller will enable us to put the extra on the consumer, you cannot expect that we should have any objection, except, I am sure, that the nation generally and the other hon. Members of this House would say to us that with our experience and knowledge of the coal trade we were a nice set of men to have led the country into such a mess. Otherwise, so far as the owners are concerned, why should we object to the extra cost, the 8s. or 10s., or the shorter hours? We should go to the Coal Controller and say to him, "Please permit us to make the consumer pay," and then the consumer would pay, and we should be in as good a position as before, subject to the nation being in as good a position; and on that point you would expect the coal-owner to give a little good advice. I happen to
know a little bit about the steel trade, and the other day we got a message from the Board of Trade to the effect that they would like us in the steel trade to inform them how to get over this difficulty. "We find," they said, "that America is able to sell steel all over the world £5 cheaper than you can do it in this country. Please inform us how this arises?" Of course, I venture to think the Board of Trade ought to have known it themselves, that the higher wages and higher cost of fuel, and all the subsidies that are going about no doubt raises the cost. The Board of Trade ought to have known that without coming to us.
We are all faced with this question, the fact that America can produce and is selling cheaper than we can, in South America, India, Australia, the Colonies, and the Argentine. We have a very large business in South America, but we have not had an order for a couple of months, because all the orders have gone to America for wire rods and wire netting and all that sort of work. I think it would be wrong if these facts were not submitted to the House, so that the House might know that if we are going to give this increase to the miners it will put an extra cost on everything—not only steel, but all the chemicals in the country and other industries—and in adding to the cost we shall damage the trade of the country. One hon. Member gave us figures showing that before 1914 the colliers'wages—men at the face—were £1 19s., and that at present they were £4 3s. 6d., I think it was. At any rate, they were over £4. Now that is certainly 100 per cent. increase in wages. On top of that we are told we must give a further 30 per cent. so that the wages really asked for are something like 130 per cent. more than what they were before the War. I am not saying that a collier gets too much. I know his work. I am proud of what he does, and the glorious way in which he has fought in the War. My son, unfortunately went down into a pit, and caught cold there and died. I know all about the conditions, and how severe and hard is the work they do.
I see the Minister for Education below me. When we were settling the Education Bill last year, and there were deputations, he was most anxious—I hope I am not misconstruing him—that we should give the miners more education and increase their facilities. I think I am right
in saying the Minister for Education said that when he went into the colliery districts there was nothing that struck him so much as the amount of money they had and the amount of leisure they had to spend it, and that he could not consent to our proposals for some rearrangement because, in his opinion, his chief duty was to teach them how to spend their leisure and money well. I am only mentioning that because, whilst I quite agree as to the hardship of the miners' life, I think many exaggerate them to a large extent, because the miners in our district are a very happy family. They seem to live pretty well and fairly contentedly. I have a son who is working with me, and I do not hear that there is now that misery and discontent with their surroundings that their used to be in the old days when wages were small.
It is just as well to consider the figures of some of the mines. You would almost think that the only people who are the foundation for this contention are South Wales and Scotland. South Wales and Scotland may prosper highly. There is a South Wales coal-owner sitting beside me. I do not know whether they do prosper so tremendously in South Wales, but I am bound to say it is not so in Lancashire. I have here two cost-sheets, and the cost of the coal in one case, including everything, is 23s.8d. a ton—that is, including materials and 15s. 10d. for wages. I have another one in which the figure is 18s. 8d. Those figures are very considerable increases when you come to put them on to costs, and, as a matter of fact, in most collieries—and it is pretty much so in all the collieries in Lancashire, many of the older collieries in Yorkshire and many other places—the sales at present do not meet the costs. In one of these cases the sales up to date are £437,000 and the working expenditure £443,000. So that we have got £6,000 for which to apply to our friend the Coal Controller. The same thing occurs in two other sheets I have here. We are all working at a loss. The working expenditure is in excess of the sales, and the sales there are, in the one case 19s. 3d., and in the-other case 16s. 3d. These figures may not agree with the state of things in South Wales and Scotland, but they show the state in Lancashire and of a good deal of Yorkshire. An addition of 30 per cent. would mean a tremendous increase to the cost of wages, and the cost we shall have to ask from
the consumer in order to repay this heavy charge. Can we do it? There is the bunkering of coal. There is all the export of coal from South Wales. Our information is that all the purchases now for coal for Spain and Italy are going to America, and not coming to this country. If we cannot let them have it at the price America is now selling coal, are we going to get the trade at the increased cost when all these additions have been made? If we do not, and starvation wages return to the miners, are they going to be improved in their position—or are any of us going to prosper? What we want is to keep wages and the standard of comfort? We ought to have good trade, but we cannot have good trade, if we cannot do our work at a cost to compete with America, and, shortly, Belgium and France. We shall be left behind, and then where will our workpeople be? What a responsibility this House will have if they consent to such wages that the world cannot stand it. The world not being able to stand it, we shall be shut out. What is the use of talking of shorter hours and more comfort for the men if there are no wages to go to their homes? And there will be no wages if we crush trade to the extent we are likely to do.
With regard to nationalisation, I venture to think that the men are not wise to press that, and I will give them only two reasons. My father-in-law was a collier who worked in the pit. But he worked hard. He went to the mining college, and improved his education, and was finally a Member of this House for Wigan. But he did a very wise thing. His ability was known, and some one in a colliery in the district came and asked him to manage it. He said, "No, I am not going to manage it. If you will make me a partner I will come and join." He became a partner and a prosperous coal-owner. After twenty years of age he had a peaceful and an enjoyable time. Is not that a position from which you are going to shut every man out in the coal trade? Every good man who goes to a college and works, and is fit for a splendid job, is to be stereotyped in a post of £300, £400, or £500 a year. You say you want to nationalise the mines. What salaries do the Post Office officials get? What salaries do the telephone officials get in comparison with what, I hope, is the ambition of all of you clever colliery men on the other side, that you may be partners and enjoy your lives in the same way
as anybody else? I venture to think you are committing a foolish deprivation of all your children's future in saying that they are to become children of the State, with miserably reduced salaries, instead of having the ambition of being such as your fellows are, and ruling the country and the State. On the other question of nationalisation, which, I think, is a very strong one, who is going to find the capital to sink these mines?

An HON. MEMBER: The State.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: The State?

An HON. MEMBER: Yes.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: And does the hon. Member think that the State is going to find it when the project is to hunt for coal under the sea, and there is a doubt of getting it; when it is an engineer's proposition which everybody does not accept? Will the State say: "We will risk half a million in looking for this coal." The coal-owners do it. You have some of these magnificent collieries in Durham sunk and opened by owners and fitted with every appliance to bring the coal up in the cheapest method, to wash it, to distribute it, and deliver it in the best possible way. Will the State do that? Will the State come forward and risk £500,000, which has been risked in the past by the coal-owner with no certainty of a profitable result, or it might be nine years before you got a penny on your money? I myself have done it in some of my colliery ventures. You put down your bore-hole, then you sink your shaft, then you find water in the shaft, and it is years before you get any return. You think once or twice as to whether or not you will abandon the mine. What will the State do in circumstances of this sort? Will the State find the money? I doubt it. The result will be that instead of having an ambitious and a well-managed industry, a credit to the whole world, assisted by the talents of those represented by hon. Members opposite, assisted by clever mining engineers, and by the men who control the industry, you will have an industry dull, dead, and on one level in which there is no progress and no enterprise. If you suck the industry dry by high wages it will be a grave mistake, for without money you cannot keep the thing going, or advance the trade, or improve the exchanges in the world, or bring about the reduction of freights for the bringing of food to this
country, with all the other enormous advantages contained in the coal trade. I do appeal to hon. Members opposite to consider this question not only in the narrow light of increased wages, for I go with them thoroughly in urging every comfort for the worker, good housing, and proper wages—but I do venture to think that, they ought to have an inquiry to see that they are not going to destroy the industry of the country. As to nationalisation to which they have been married for some time, and from which they will not have a divorce, I ask them to put that on one side for the present until a Commission has reported, which will show how it can be done—if possible—without injury to the State, and without injury to all their dear ones, and all others interested in the coal trade.

Mr. WATERSON: It is a strange coincidence that the last Bill we had the pleasure of discussing in this House dealt with air navigation, and that the next Bill that followed it—the present—should deal with matters affecting men and an industry in the bowels of the earth. I have listened with rapt attention to the hon. Member who has just spoken. To my mind he has very eloquently put forward the old plausible tale to which we have been subjected from that class of the community for many, many years. He speaks of his class as the "poor coal-owners of the country." In stating this, and in speaking of the output, he never tells us, nor do other hon. Gentlemen representing capital in this particular industry, the exact output, and the exact profits, that accrue from the concerns in which they are particularly interested.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I have told the losses, the three losses I made, and losses are worse than profits!

Mr. WATERSON: Then Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is remarkable how exceedingly well many of these worthy gentlemen thrive on their losses. I have on more than one occasion had to deal not only with individuals of the class represented by the hon. Gentleman as business men, but I have also had to deal with companies in which I have had the privilege of negotiating conditions, and so on, and they always put forward this plausible plea. Some, at any rate, thrive extremely grand upon it. I happen to represent a constituency. I do not want like some hon. Gentlemen to give the House the exact figures of my majority. I am satisfied,
so far as my Constituency is concerned, that they consider that they have done their duty—and I come from a constituency that, to my knowledge, has not a single mine in it. Therefore, I can voice, at any rate, the feelings and aspirations of the British people in that constituency. Let me say here, quite frankly, that the question of not merely hours and wages contained in this Bill, but also the greater principle of nationalisation, was one of the main points that I put forward in my programme in order to be returned to this House. Naturally, then, I come forward pledged to the full to see that at the first opportunity the principles of nationalisation of mines shall be operative.
As I look on the benches opposite, and consider that a while ago they were more full than at the present moment, I may say the assemblage to me represented mining directors and owners more than it represented to me a House of Commons of the people of this country. I was somewhat astounded by one or two remarks which fell from one of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who represents one of the divisions of North Wales. He put forward well the plea that he represented the North Wales miners. I am not an individual who generally makes a challenge of any description, but I venture to predict for him in respect to the challenge that he has put forward, that had the conditions been of a normal character at the recent election, under ordinary circumstances, in all probability he would not have been sitting in this House. It is all very well for hon. Members who want to rise up with patriotic pride to say that they are not Bolshevists. I have failed to come across many men in this House who really do understand the elementary principles of Bolshevism. It is extremely easy to say, "I am not a Bolshevist." Neither do I in any way support propaganda of this description. But the Bill we have before us is certainly an extraordinarily important one. Whilst there may be one or two points worthy of consideration, it will not be acceptable to the miners of this country unless the principle of hours and wages is settled to-night, and also unless we come to an understanding that nationalisation shall be established. We have been told that the public have to be considered. There is no sensible man in this House who does not view it from that point of view. It is because we believe on these benches that the public has a right to be considered that we ask
for the principles in the Amendment, even if we have to go to a Division in order that they shall be put forward. One hon. Gentleman has spoken with reference to the cost of production being placed upon the consumers. This is nothing new, because the consumers always have to pay, and strange to say the consumers in the country who have to purchase in the smallest quantities have to pay the greatest price for everything. Therefore, under State control, we say nationalisation would be in the interests of the public and the consumer.
9.0.P.M.
Have the public always been considered by the mine-owning classes, and by those who are enjoying the benefits of the royalties accruing from this industry? Have they always, considered the sympathetic public which they now ask the miners to consider? I think not. If we only take a glance around and see some of the habitations in which, the miners live, to use an old paraphrase, how can you expect an A1 population to thrive under even C3 conditions of that character? I have seen, in my own locality, men coming from the pits wet through to their knees, the bottoms of their trousers drenched with the very water they have been standing in, and is it too much to say that six hours is sufficient for those men to be engaged in an occupation of that kind. I only had the privilege once in my life to go down in a cage. I am not a miner, and I have been in the railway industry for the past twenty-three years, but I have seen in the mining industry these men go down into the very bowels of the earth and face even death itself for from eight to ten hours, and I submit that under hazardous conditions of that character six hours is sufficient from bank to bank, for the life these men have to endure day after day. This House has been shocked on more than one occasion when it has read of the terrible disasters that have come to the mining classes of this country, not during this last year or so, but when we think of that great accident at Whitehaven and others in the South Wales area and how men have gone to their death. What for? Has not the output of these men been for the benefit of the few and to the detriment of the majority? Of course it has, and none but the mine-owning classes would endeavour to dissuade us from that point of view. I presume it would be as well for me to be in harmony with the rest of hon. Mem-
bers who have spoken, and to say that I am a constitutionalist. Generally when new Members rise they say they are constitutionalists, consequently as a new Member making his maiden speech I must be in harmony with the rest of the House, and I say as a constitutionalist I regret more than any man here representing a mining constituency that the miners have not sent more men on these benches instead of the opposing classes who are against it. The miners' vote, of which we hear so much about in the Press to-day, let us remember, is a democratic vote. The Miners' Federation and its executive have not been heard in the country sending their Whips here and there in order to influence their members, as has been done in this House on more than one occasion in order to get hon. Members to vote. Here they tell hon. Members they have to do it whether they desire it or not, or they will be party-hounded out. These men have had their free choice and no one to instruct them—nothing to assist them except their own intelligence when the ballot paper has been presented before them. They have not been informed in any way in reference to that, and it is because they have had a free voice and a free vote that there are Members of this House who would undermine even that principle. If the vote had been instituted in a devious and ulterior way, the Miners' Federation would have been condemned.
The Premier stated that he would have an inquiry. I am anxious that on the Commission there should be 50 per cent. of workmen in the mining industry. I am almost sick to death and tired of what we have experienced on Commissions heretofore. In the past we have had too much theory and too little practice. What is required on Commissions of this kind is that the men who have the practical working of the whole thing and know it from its very fundamental basis should be the men who should form fifty of that Commission, and the evidence should be given clearly and distinctly in the interests of those whom they desire to serve. I am extremely anxious that on this Commission the principles in the Amendment should be incorporated, and that we should have 50 per cent. of practical men upon it. Why is this unrest, why is there this trouble throughout the country? Remember that it is the awakening of democracy.
Has not the Premier given the working men of this country the call to a higher
life? He has told us more than once that we must rise to the occasion. He has told us, "You must have audacity, audacity, audacity." Those are the Premier's words, and if this unrest is coming about, the right hon. Gentleman must accept the responsibility of his own sayings while he is Premier. I agree with the attitude taken up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) when he said the case was an irresistible one. I believe it is irresistible from more than one point of view. Let us view it from a health point of view. Can you expect the best from these men when they have been working so many hours against nature, fighting it as they have been fighting it, can you expect a strong and virile race when men have to work in the mines as they have had to work in the past? Why cannot the Government concede this principle and concede now a principle that will have to be settled in a short time? If the Premier has so much confidence in the Commission—by his words he almost infers that all that we ask for will be established—would it not be better to avert this terrible catastrophe of a national stoppage by conceding the principle now and going into the minor details afterwards? It has been said that the ringleaders in the Miners' Federation are driving these men like a flock of sheep. Thousands of men, 600,000 in round figures, are not to be led like a dog to the slaughter. [Laughter.] Unfortunately new Members sometimes make a slip. This is the usual method adopted by the Government in order to try and create a false impression throughout the country.
There are several reasons for this unrest. The "New Statesman" is not written by the editor of the "Labour Leader." It is not a Socialist Review, or anything of that character. It is written by men of the calibre of those who sit on the benches opposite. The "New Statesman," of 2nd November, 1918, when dealing with the question, "Who is getting richer," said that the 2 per cent. of the population who formerly owned two-thirds of the total wealth of the country now, after four and a half years of war, probably own three-fourths of a greatly augmented total. The working men read these things and form their own opinion. They have come to the conclusion that they are not receiving a fair proportion of the wealth that they produce, and
that something drastic should be done in order to secure to them a fair proportion. The Premier, in his closing remarks, made an exceedingly impassioned appeal. His impassioned appeals, when he wants to get the sympathy of the House, are beginning to get a little old and ancient. They do not have the effect upon the working class that they had two or three years ago. We refuse to remit the case to arbitration. My experience of arbitration has not been an exceedingly happy one. Who are the men upon whom the decision rests in every arbitration? They are men who do not understand the position either on the one side or the other, and they cannot in any way get even a glimpse of the ordinary toiler's life and conditions. They are drawn from a class whose very environment has given them the idea that the workers are selfish and inhuman beings. We feel that even with independent arbitration we have not had that justice given us that our case demands. I want to appeal to the House not to consider it in the light of what the coal-owners have to say, or so much from the point of view that has been expressed from these benches, but to consider it in the light of justice and in the light of how the State will benefit if these principles are adopted as incorporated in the Amendment. Therefore, I appeal to the House, which has listened very attentively to my maiden speech, for which I thank it, to stand by the Amendment, and if it goes to a Division to give the miners an opportunity to say that these principles shall be adopted.

Sir W. DAVISON: I desire very briefly to intervene in this Debate, and I do so with the more assurance as I have no connection whatever either with the miners or the mine-owners. I think that is an advantage, for the question which we have been discussing this afternoon is one which concerns far more people than the miners and mine-owners. If any of us were in doubt as to whether an inquiry into the many points that we have had discussed this afternoon were necessary, I think the Debate will have made us sure that such an inquiry is required. It was remarked by the hon. and gallant Member for Mid Antrim (Major O'Neill), when speaking in the Debate on the Procedure Amendments of the Government, that he thought Governments were often misled and induced to do things by listening only to the speeches which were made in this House, though those speeches very often did not
give an accurate diagnosis of the feeling of the House or of the country. I venture to think that the Debate this afternoon exemplifies that point. It has been conducted too much on the lines of the miners, the mines, and the mine-owners. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the front Opposition Bench made the remark that it was no good putting this question of the 30 per cent. increase before a Commission for inquiry, because it was a question of the standard of life which the miners had determined should be improved. In my opinion, the question of the standard of life is a most important one to be inquired into. You cannot fix a standard of life for one particular class or one particular industry; it depends upon a thousand different things. If the fixing of a standard of life for the mining industry involves the raising of the price of coal, as we heard from one hon. Gentleman opposite, by another 10s., from 48s. to 58s. per ton, it will affect the standard of life of a very large number of people in this country.
We therefore see that the standard of life of one section of the community is interdependent with the standard of life of other sections of the community, and it is impossible for one section to say, "We have decided upon securing an improved standard of life. It is not a matter which any Commission or Committee can decide; it is one which we have decided, and we demand that this should be given to us without inquiry." I say again that it is a very much bigger question than the question of the mines, the miners, and the mine-owners. It is really a question as to whether this Government, which has been returned to power by one of the largest majorities which any Government of this country has ever secured, and which has also been returned by an electorate, both of men and of women, such as has never expressed its opinion upon things before, shall decide and bring forward measures as they have pledged themselves to do to improve the standard of living all round throughout the country or whether a particular section of the community or a particular trade shall say to the Government, "Now, at our time, before you have got into your stride, before you have even settled the terms of peace, you shall give us an improved standard of life, which we shall fix without inquiry." I say that is a very big matter, far bigger than the
question as to whether the standard of life in that particular industry should be improved or not.
I made notes of several of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite and I observed that many of them rang with what, without disrespect, I may call a somewhat dictatorial tone. One hon. Gentleman, referring to the questions of wages and hours, said of the miners, "They are ripe for it and intend to get it." A right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench said there would of course be difficulties if a 30 per cent. increase of wages were given, together with a six hours' day, but the injury of the country would not be so great as if a strike were allowed to take place. A third hon. Gentleman said, "I do not want a strike, but I want those terms which we have demanded." In every one of those speeches there was an implication that the miners had a right to say to the Government, "We want certain things and you must give them to us." This is a very big question and I hope the Government will remember that they were returned to power not only to secure improved conditions for the mining industry, which, like other industries, requires improved conditions, but that they represent the country as a whole, and that this House and the country will support them in holding a full inquiry into this matter. I greatly deprecate giving way to a demand of this kind from a particular section of the community without the fullest inquiry and consideration.

Mr. W. CARTER: I think we all realise that the question before the House is a great and grave one, which will require tact and discretion if we are to prevent a catastrophe in the industrial world. I have listened this evening with some respect to speeches which have been made by hon. Gentlemen, but I have also listened with a certain amount of indignation to other speeches which have been delivered. There are certain periods in the history of our nation when miners come into very prominent positions, and while sitting here my mind has gone back to the history of the mining movement and of the Miners' Federation, and I have asked myself whether there is any justification for the suspicions and charges which have been levelled against that body. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain has always been in the van of progress. It is a federation of men who have always recognised that if the workers are to have
fair and humane conditions they can only procure them on the lines of combination. I can remember when the miners were responsible for bringing certain questions before the House in the past, and when the very predictions which have been made to-night were put forward. Even when they brought the question before the House of establishing the principle of the minimum wage, so that the working men of this country should have a bare subsistence, or, in other words, that they should be allowed to live, the same criticisms were meted out against the principle of that humane proposal, and there were hon. Members in the House who declared that even in accepting the principle of a minimum wage we were going headlong to ruin, that we were driving trade out of the country, and that it would be the end of all things. But we have lived to see the day when the gentlemen who prophesied the downfall of this country, both economically and industrially, have been so converted to the principle of the minimum wage that just recently they have advocated to the best of their ability in this House that it should be made applicable to almost every trade in the country. They were mistaken in their ideas and judgment then, and I maintain that they are equally mistaken in their ideas to-day.
I can remember the day when I worked down a coal-mine as a lad, going down the pit on Monday morning and never seeing daylight till three o'clock on Saturday afternoon, with the result that when we came out of the pit we were blinded by the daylight and could not see for five or ten minutes, because it was so unnatural to us. And when an attempt was made to remedy that condition of affairs we were told that unless we were very careful we should drive trade out of the country. The same arguments were used against the eight-hour day proposal. I want this House to understand that when the miners agitated for the Eight Hours Bill they intended that it should be from bank-to-bank—that it should be a clear-cut eight hours. But it was altered in another place, so as to include the time of going down and coming out of the pit, making it not eight or nine hours but often nine and a half hours, and there are men to-day coming from collieries in the district I represent who are away from their homes as much as eleven or twelve hours per day, because, owing to housing conditions, it is impossible
for them to live near the pit. I think we shall all agree that so far as the miner's occupation is concerned it is a most hazardous and dangerous one. We all know, or ought to know, the cramped conditions under which the miner has to work. As one who has been down the mines as a practical miner for over thirty years, working in the thick and in the thin seams, I am so convinced with regard to that occupation, which appeals to some people being such an ideal one, that I would never advise my lad to take it up, because I know of its dangers and hazards, and of its great and laborious work. As one who has some human nature in him, I told my lads to keep out of the pits and of the colliery. I think that in this House we all agree as to that, and when, at the present day, a man has been buried in the earth, hacking and picking for a certain commodity which is acknowledged to be the very life of the nation. Also, having regard to the fact that there are annually 1,400 or 1,500 fatal accidents in the pits, and that there are tens of thousands of other accidents, where the miner, working in that dangerous occupation, meets with an accident and has to go on to the Workmen's Compensation Fund, of which the benefits are so limited in character, that I tell the House in all sincerity that there is no class of the community which is suffering to a greater extent than those men and women who are dependent on this Compensation Fund, and who at the present time are literally starving, because of the limitations of the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The miner's occupation is peculiarly dangerous, and there are a very large number of men in it to-day who are suffering to a much greater degree than in any other industry.
With regard to nationalisation, the question has been a subject which has been debated now for many years at the miners' conferences, and year after year it has been agreed to unanimously. There is no class of the community which has been more tolerant and patient than the miners. Time after time they have sent their resolutions to the heads of the State but they have been ignored. The mining community think that this is an opportune time for the State to take over the mines. If it is imperative, at a time when the nation is in peril and we are in grave danger, to put into operation the principle of State ownership and State control.
I ask hon. Members whether there is not some virtue in regard to nationalisation? I believe that every Member of the House thinks that it is inevitable and knows it is inevitable, and that it is only a question of putting off what I may call the happy day. I listened with some interest to a statement which was made by an hon. Member who appears to be connected with the mining industry. He said he had a son, and that he was in the fortunate position—and I am pleased to know it—of being able to give his son the best of educations. Owing to the education which he received, his son was in a position to take up a great and responsible post in the mining industry. When he was asked to take over the management of the mine, he replied, "No; I cannot do that. If I am going to take any action in regard to the mine, I am going to be a partner." That is where we are. We think that if the mines are nationalised and every member of the community is a partner, then all that would come from that great industry would be for the good of the nation. I hope and trust that, so far as the Government is concerned, they will listen to the appeals that have been made by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to include the question of wages and hours in the terms of reference in this Bill.
Something has been said by Members on the other side of the House on the question as to whether or not we had a mandate. The district for Nottinghamshire, for which I am the Member, and the coalfield which I have the honour to represent as a trade union leader, have always been looked upon as an area of very moderate and modest men. In fact, the charge has been made many times that we were behind the times. The return that has been made with regard to the question before the House is not five nor eight to one, it is twelve to one. Our people are so interested and as enthusiastic in regard to what they think is a reasonable and legitimate claim, that they have almost demanded that the leaders should attend meetings on the Sunday. I only wish that the hon. Members who seem to doubt that we come here with a mandate had been with me yesterday when I attended a meeting of miners in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, where the men flocked in their hundreds and thousands to hear the report of the general secretary of our federation. These men were enthusiastic, and it is my firm con-
viction that unless the Government accepts the appeal which has been made to them this evening, and keep out of the terms of reference the question of wages and of hours, then—I am very sorry to have to say it—a strike in the coal industry is inevitable. A conference is to be called in this city on Wednesday next. The delegates are coming from every part of the coalfield. I know with what mandate they are coming up here. Some hon. Members have said that this is simply pointng a pistol at their heads. It is not altogether that; but it is because we believe in our hearts that the appeal with regard to hours and also with regard to the advance which we are making to the Government responsible for the administration of this country is so reasonable in character, when the men's health is absolutely dependent upon the shorter hours suggested. Again, when you get the 30 per cent. and add it to the amount even which the Prime Minister submitted, I venture to suggest that with this £4 a week which the miners are getting—some of them, because in the district which I represent the average day rate is 14s. 4d., and, if you add the 30 per cent., less the war wage, it will not make more than 17s. 6d. or 18s.; multiply that by five and you get your £4 10s.—you will find that the purchasing power of that money only represents just over £2. If you had to go into the market, as our wives have to, to purchase the commodities of life at the present moment, you will find there was very little margin left over for what is usually called the rainy day. I hope and trust the Government will be able to meet us. No one would deplore a strike more than I should; no one would deplore a strike more than the people with whom I have the honour and privilege to be associated. It is because we feel that the proposals which have been submitted by the Minors' Federation of Great Britain are reasonable that we have confidence that something will be done to avert a national catastrophe, that common sense will prevail, and that the miners will come to the advantages which they have submitted for your consideration.

Mr. MADDOCKS: My justification for rising to-night is that I represent a constituency in which there are from 17,000 to 20,000 miners. It has been my experience, during the fourteen or fifteen years I have been among them, that they are very reasonable men and men who like justice and fair play. I have heard to-day
that upon the ballot being taken, 11,900 odd miners voted in favour of a strike and only 793 voted against it. I am sure, from my knowledge of the miners, that there are great grievances that have to be redressed. Every Member who has spoken in this House from the moment the Prime Minister opened the Debate up to now has been of one accord, that the miners have grievances to be redressed. The question of whether the miners are deserving of sympathy is not before the House. The question whether they are underpaid is not before the House, and the question whether we are to extend sympathy to them is not before the House. What is before the House is this: In order to arrive at the truth, is there to be an investigation of the facts, or is there not? The Prime Minister put many facts before the House which were contradicted by the Labour Members. Which facts are to be accepted? If the Prime Minister's facts are to be accepted, it would follow that the Government, acting upon those facts, if they had to take any course in connection with a labour dispute, might do a great injury to the miners. The miners' facts may be correct, and if those facts are investigated by a Commission of Inquiry and are found to be correct, I say most emphatically that the miners will have public opinion behind them and their position will be strengthened. But if, on the other hand, it is found from the inquiry that those figures are not correct, but that the figures in the possession of the Government are correct, then if the miners where to persist in their attitude it would amount to this, "Either you will accept facts which are incorrect, or we will cause a national strike."
With regard to wages, the amount miners are able to earn has been disputed from both sides of the House. That can be inquired into and ascertained to a nicety. With regard to hours, whether they are exceptionally long, whether in some districts they are from bank to bank, or whether an allowance is made in some other way—all that can be inquired into. Knowing the name of the learned judge who will preside over the Commission, if it is appointed, one knows that that name is a guarantee of impartiality and that the Commission itself is stamped with the hallmark of thoroughness by the name of the learned judge who is to be Chairman. Why, therefore, should the miners' representatives here to-day say to the House,
"We want you to eliminate from the inquiry all questions of wages and all questions of hours"? It must be, and can only be, that they are afraid to test these figures in the light of an inquiry. If that is so, I am quite sure I am speaking for the miners of Warwickshire when I say it is an attempt to get an advantage on figures which are not correct, and I am quite sure that the miners of Warwickshire would repudiate it. With regard to the nationalisation of mines, one is quite aware that that is the burning question behind all the others. It is the one question the Miners' Federation wishes to force upon the country. What question requires greater investigation than a question which would involve the spending of hundreds of millions of public money? It could not be done without an investigation, and as I understand the terms of the reference to the Commission of Inquiry they would include an inquiry into the desirability of the nationalisation of the mines. All these matters would be inquired into in the most careful way if this Bill is passed, and then the House and the country would be able to judge what would be the proper, honourable and fair course to take with regard to the mines.
One word with regard to the position of the miners in respect to the threatened strike. Although the miners' representatives here and the miners' leaders in the country may say that the vote of the miner is for a strike—and I agree unless his grievances are redressed—they must not put upon the miners' shoulders the responsibility for the refusal to grant an extension of fourteen days for an inquiry. That rests upon the shoulders of the hon. Gentlemen opposite and of the Labour leaders. The men have been loyal to their federation. The men have had word from their federation that a national principle is involved in this strike, and they have been loyal to their federation and have voted throughout the country for the strike: but they leave it in the hands of their leaders to advise them as to its being postponed. Very rarely in the history of this country has so great a burden been laid upon the shoulders of any men outside the Government as lies upon the shoulders of those who have to advise the miners in favour of a strike in place of an inquiry. I wish to protect the miners. I wish to say it is not the responsibility of the miners if the miners refuse to have an inquiry to ascertain the facts of the case. It will be the
delegates, it will be their representatives, who will refuse the offer of the Prime Minister. Before irreparable damage is done, not only to the miners but to the country, those hon. Gentlemen opposite should consider whether they will not agree to the recommendation of the Prime Minister in favour of this Commission of Inquiry.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I, like the last speaker, represent a constituency which consists very largely of coal-miners, and as I intend to vote with the Government to-night, I do not feel that I can very well give a silent vote on the matter. Representing, as I do, a great mining constituency, I know perfectly well the danger and the hardship of their lives. I know the industry well in which they pursue their calling; I know the loyalty with which they stuck to their work all through the four and a half years of war; I know, moreover, the conditions under which they have to live. When I see the housing in that part of the country I represent, it is enought to madden men. I fear that if I myself had to live under those conditions, I should be far more violent than any of my Constituents are in my denunciation of the evil conditions under which I lived. I have no doubt that quite apart from housing, which is of such a scandalous character, they have a just claim for great improvements in many respects. Let me say with regard to the particular demands which are now before us, that all through the General Election these three questions were not asked of me. Now these three questions are brought forward, and we are told that they must not only be inquired into and granted, if possible, if the inquiry can show a way of granting them, but that two of them must be granted straight off without any inquiry, and as for the third—nationalisation—that also must be accepted in principle, and what is to be left to the inquiry is the particular method of carrying it out. I am not opposed to these demands. As to nationalisation, I have been a land nationaliser for many years, and for many years I was chairman of the Land Nationalisation Society; therefore I am not in the least likely to be against the proposal, for the nationalisation of the land, of course, involving the nationalisation of minerals. But I cannot help remembering that we are within a few weeks of a General Election, in which the country has returned a Conservative majority,
and I should not, as a reasonable man, even though a land nationaliser, come to this House and say, "Having been returned as a great Conservative majority within a few weeks you are now to accept straight off and without any inquiry this great principle of land nationalisation." We must be reasonable, and if the Government has gone so far as to say that it will refer the question of the nationalisation of the minerals of the country to a Commission of Inquiry, I, as a land nationaliser, consider that we have achieved a very great step forward indeed. If we come to the other demands there is the six hours, meaning, as I understand, an actual six hours work in the mines. In Durham that does not make a very great deal of difference. The hours of actual work are not very much longer at present. It does not in the least appal me if it is suggested that the working hours of the miners should be six throughout the rest of the country, because that is within a little what the working hours of the miners are in Durham. Then you come to the other point, the 30 per cent. rise, and we are told it would be a disaster to the industries of the country. I admit there is a very great deal to be said for that, especially at the present time, and yet I cannot help remembering that these great increases of wages take place from time to time. I cannot help remembering that if a 30 per cent. advance had been demanded in 1914 we should have been told it would be entirely ruinous to the industry of the country, and yet much more than a 30 per cent. advance has occurred since then. I admit that the circumstances have been very special. I do not use that as a conclusive argument that the 30 per cent. should be granted straight off. I give it simply as a reason why it does not appal me and why I think it is a matter for fair inquiry by the Commission which it is intended to put up.
If the Government had met these demands with a blank refusal I should have been obliged to vote against the Government on the matter. As they have said they will grant a fair inquiry, as they have named a Gentleman of conspicuous ability and impartiality to take the lead in that inquiry, as they have promised us that the inquiry shall be completed within one short month, and I think we have also been told before that the advance which may be given will be dated back, I cannot possibly vote to refuse their
offer and to insist that by 15th March the two main propositions must be granted and the principle of the third must be granted, and only matters of detail left to the inquiry. I do not believe my Constituents, though they are for the most part miners, would desire me to vote for anything of the kind. I do not believe for a minute that if the case is properly put before them by their leaders they will say, "No; we are willing to wait nineteen days for a decision in this matter, but we absolutely refused to wait thirty-five days, and we will plunge the country into untold misery and disaster sooner than we will wait an extra sixteen days." I think there is a most serious duty lying upon the shoulders of the Labour leaders, and of those who represent mining constituencies, to say to the men that in the present state of national affairs it is not reasonable that they should insist upon these demands, however good they are in themselves—and, in the main, I believe there is a very great deal to be said for them—being granted out of hand before there has been time for even the most expeditious inquiry to deal with them. I must, therefore, vote for the Government in this matter, and in doing so I do not feel that I am voting against labour. Very far from it. I believe I am voting for a course which will lead to very great improvements in the conditions of the working masses of the people, and more particularly of the mining class, and that those great improvements will be brought about by peaceful means, and without the injury to the other trades and the other people of the country which might result if we were rash enough to rush on this matter and to insist upon a settlement before there has been time to inquire into it.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I will not detain the House for many minutes. If I had my way I would cut down every Member to ten minutes, and I think the House would be very much the better for it and would live much longer, because we should not be bored quite as much as we are at present. I want to say a word or two on the nationalisation of mines. Some hon. Members seem to think this a new thing which we have never thought of till now. Nationalisation of mines is quite an old thing, and several years ago a Bill was deposited in this House by the miners
themselves on this very point. Since I have been in the House I listened to that very long and tedious discussion when everything which could be said was said about unrest and what brought it about. I believe I could say in a sentence what is at the bottom of the unrest, and it is that the workers of this country are tired of working in order simply to make profits for a few people. I believe that is at the very bottom of the thing. There are other sidelights about it, but that is the basis of it all. The same applies to the miners, and, whatever conditions are given, or whatever wages are paid to miners, there will be no rest until the industry is nationalised. They have to believe that it is national wealth, and ought to be worked for the benefit of the nation. The wasteful method in which the mines are worked is sufficient to force us to nationalisation, and I believe if hon. Members who are not acquainted with mines knew the wasteful way in which the mines are worked they, too, would favour the very idea that we are talking about. I was down a pit not many weeks ago, trying to fix a price-list there. I found the seam was this: There were 2 ft. of coal—and there are plenty of seams in this country worked at a profit at 2 ft. There was stone about 15 in. to 18 in., then 3 ft. 6 in. of coal, and a workable seam, yet they were working the top piece of coal and leaving the 2 ft., which it would be practically impossible ever to reach again. Why was that? I suppose it was because the mine-owners were working the mine for profit, and they wanted to work the best pit. The miners were piece workers, and they wanted the best pit too. But it is really a waste of national wealth, and from that standpoint I believe it ought to be seriously faced, and there will be no rest until these big industries are nationalised.
Some hon. Members have a very queer way of showing how they are representing their constituents. One hon. Member said he believed that about 9,000 voted in favour of the strike, and about 700 against, and he claimed that he is representing them in advocating the Prime Minister's Commission. That is very queer when we are considering the vote that was given. Now we come to the point as to the six hours. We go on talking about the six-hour shift. An hon. Friend said it was six hours actual work. It is nothing of the sort. We are supposed to be working under an Eight Hours Act at the present time, but
it has never been eight hours. In the bigger pits some of the men have to start to go down an hour before the time, and it takes them an hour after they finish work before they are up again. That means ten hours. The men are in the pit ten hours. This six-hours day would simply mean that the men would be down the pit eight hours. Another hon. Member spoke about the leisure the miners have. There is a workmen's train which starts at five o'clock every morning from the place where I live. The men go down the pit there at six o'clock, and they are back again at three o'clock. That is ten hours that they are away from home, and from the time they get up in the morning until they are back in clean clothes again it means twelve hours. And yet we talk about an eight-hour shift. It is nothing of the sort. I do not see why there should be any inquiry into this case. Some of us know from bitter experience what I am going to say now: that is the effect of long hours upon the eyesight of the workmen. That is a very serious problem. I know what it is; I have suffered from it, and when I go out of this House to-night and I look at the blaze of light I can no more see the entrance than I can fly. That is because of working long hours in a poor, miserable light. It takes you half an hour to accustom your eyes to such a light before you can see anything at all. Surely six hours is sufficient to work in that. Men are old long before they ought to be, and they suffer from very bad eyesight. I am putting a question on this point to-morrow in order to find out what the Government reply will be as to the medical examination of miners under the national service scheme. I do not know what their information will be, but I know what my information is, and that is that there is only 1 per cent. of colliery underground workers who have normal eyesight. It was the young men who were examined, not the old men, but the youngest and best men in the collieries. From the national standpoint the menought to be kept efficient for their work so long as it is possible to keep them. I do not see why there should be any inquiry into a point like this. The underground workman is not like other workmen. He works under worse conditions with the light I have spoken of, and the longer hours, than a surface man. The work is quite different.
10.0 P.M.
As to the question of wages, we have been told that the average increase which
the miner has received since the commencement of the war has been about 80 percent. We are asking for a further 30 per cent., which brings the increase of wage up to 110 per cent. Is not that about the game percentage as the increased cost of living since the commencement of the War? Surely we are entitled now that the War is over to ask for pre-war conditions. What about the coal-owners? We have had some of the accounts of the companies given to us to-day. I read of another company this morning, and although the case may not be a good one in one sense because it is a colliery company which for years did not pay. I like to see collieries paying dividends. When I go to a colliery and I find it is a good paying concern, my work is much easier than it would be if it was not a paying concern. This particular colliery did not pay for years. They got into arrears with their dividends, but, notwithstanding all the pressure which the Government has been putting upon them, and notwithstanding all the profits which some hon. Members have told us the Government has taken away from the colliery-owners, this company's report in to-day's papers shows that they have paid off the whole of their arrears since the War, and 10 per cent. dividend as well. That is rather better than pre-war conditions. We are only asking to be put in the same position as we were before the War, and we are offered an inquiry. We are against an inquiry on these two points of wages and hours, because we consider they are reasonable and just and modest. The Prime Minister some time ago told us to come forward with large demands. We are coming forward with a modest demand, and the offer which the Government gives us is an inquiry. I hope these two points will be granted. As to nationalisation you may inquire about that if you like, but nationalisation has to come, and there will be no rest until it does come.

Mr. GRANT: I desire to call attention to the fact that the iron and ore industry is very closely allied to the coal industry, and representing a constituency where there is a large production of iron ore, I desire to ask the Government whether they will include the iron-ore industry in this Bill in the same way as the Bill applies to the coal industry. I should like to know whether the Government would accept an Amendment including the iron-
ore industry in this Bill, seeing that that industry is practically on the same lines as the coal industry?

Mr. CAPE: As a new Member I have listen very attentively to the Debate. I rise to speak as one who has had experience as a practical miner and who is also a member of the Miners' Executive Committee at the present time. Therefore, I have taken part in all the deliberations that have been going on in connection with these questions that are involved in the Bill now before the House. I want to remind the House that we are asked by the Prime Minister, and also by a good many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, to hold our hands for another sixteen or seventeen days. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear!" I want to ask the Government why there has been delay since the9th January to the present time, and why they have not pressed their Departments to act quicker than they have acted? Should the miners have to put into effect the strike notices which are expected to terminate on the 15th March, I believe that the country will not put the onus of that on the miners, but on the Government of this country. [Hon. Members: "No, no!"] Let me remind hon. Members opposite of one fact. Our claims were presented on 9th January, 12th January, and 15th January. We asked for the figures that were so much talked about as long ago as August and September, 1918. We were told that under the Coal Mines Limitation Prices Act of 1916 we could not get these figures. Then we were told by the Prime Minister last week in Downing Street and this afternoon in this House that we could not get these figures. Then I want to know how has he been able to give us the startling figures which he gave us this afternoon, when he spoke of the advice which he had received? Where did he get that advice if not from the various Departments?
I am confident the Government have all the figures that are required in this case if any figures are required at all. Is it not a fact that coal-owners have to make a return to the Government once a month in respect of output, sales, prices, profits, losses and all these things? How many of the coal-owners in this country have been before the petty sessional benches because they failed to send in these returns? The matter has been camouflaged in this House just as much as the
country was camouflaged in the General Election. I agree with the right hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) that these two questions which we are asked to keep over for review by the Commission of Inquiry are not questions that need figures in the way in which we have had to have figures in our discussions before Conciliation Boards.
We have been told by the Government in a document presented to us by the Ministry of Labour and in the speech which the Minister of Labour made to us at Montagu House, that the Government were so imbued with the idea of doing something for the miners that they were prepared to give them all sympathy, consideration, and care. That we were the most vital industry in the whole Empire, and that we were the very lifeblood of the industries of the nation. When we went to the Premier in Downing Street we were also told that we were of vital importance so far as national industries were concerned. Sympathy was flowing on every side, and to-day in this House it is absolutely showered upon us. Every speaker has got up and said that he believes that the miners ought to have some of these things, and the way they dispense their sympathy to us is to compel us to a Court of Inquiry. Those who are the lifeblood of the nation and who produce its most vital raw materials are to be subject to strict inquiry as to what are to be the conditions of their employment. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members say, "Hear, hear." [An Hon. Member: "Why not?"] They can say what they like, but we believe that the two questions ought to be given as a matter of justice to the miners of this country.
One hon. Member said, "If you nationalise the mines, where are you going to get the capital?" We will get the capital in the same way as it is got at present, from the labour of the men who work in the mines. If the miners of this country have been able to produce so that the mine-owners have made fabulous fortunes, then the same mines can produce the same commodities for the benefit of the State. On the question of nationalisation, may I ask—where do the royalty owners get the right to say that they have a right to the royalties? Where have they got the right to say that they have the right to exploit the country and to say that the royalties belong to them? Where have the coal-owners got their right to say that they have the right to have full control and govern-
ment of the coal measures of this country? We say that the mines are a national asset and ought to belong to the State.
I come from a constituency that has a large proportion of miners. They not only sent me to this House with nationalisation on my programme and a six-hours day for miners, with an amended Workmen's Compensation Act and many other things, but when they were asked to take a ballot on this question, without our addressing a meeting or sending out a circular the men voted by ten to one in favour of a strike on the 15th of March. Before they took the ballot, to a large extent they knew the new propositions that had been laid before the miners by the Prime Minister, because certain parts of it had been published from Downing Street, whether we were agreeable to the publication or not. The Prime Minister in introducing the Bill this afternoon said that the cost of coal at the pittops in this country is now from 18s. to 18s. 11d. per ton, and he compared that with the cost per ton of coal in America. I am not going to dispute these figures. But I want the Prime Minister to tell us what becomes of the difference between the 18s. 11dand the £2 4s. a ton for which coal is selling in this district? An artisan who lives in this great Metropolis is glad to pay 2s. 6d. per cwt. for coal. The miner wants to know, Where are the profits going to? We say emphatically and believe that the Government already possess the figures to give us all this information, or otherwise the Premier could not have given us some of the information which he gave us to day. I thank the House for the indulgence it has extended to me as a new Member, and I ask hon. Members who are on the Government Benches to rise beyond that feeling and to recognise and realise that the mining industry of this country is a vital part of the Empire, and to let the best part of their manhood be displayed in this matter, and to use their influence in asking the Government to concede these two points without driving us to this Commission of Inquiry.

Mr. C. WHITE: I am a new Member, and I certainly cannot aspire to the eloquence or verbosity one hears from both sides of the House. I am an uncompromising Radical and shall find myself in most Divisions in the Lobby with the Labour party. I started life to work at ten years of age at one shilling per week. In a year it was increased by another
shilling, and so on to sixteen years of age, so that I claim to know something of what the cottager's life is. I never lived in anything else but a cottage, and I want to speak from that standpoint to-night. My sympathies are entirely with labour. I favour the increase in the miners' wages. I favour the reduced hours of labour they ask for, and I favour the nationalisation of the mines. I believe the miners' case is so strong that the Government ought, before the 15th March, be able to make up their minds with regard to it, and that the Commission ought to be in a position to bring in an interim Report with regard to these two matters. I have heard a good deal since I came to this House a fortnight ago about the general welfare of the community. I want to speak on the human side of this question. We heard a good deal about industry and the effect of increasing wages and shorter hours on industry. I desire to mention the case of a class who have not been spoken about and who are the least able to help themselves in this great crisis. I am hereto say that there is nothing can excuse a national strike at the present moment looked at from the standpoint of those people. I come from a district with 124 parishes and 320 square miles in extent which was managed largely and strangely by two dukes up to the recent election, when the people at last found their sense. I know the homes of three thousand soldiers there. I know how they are suffering at the moment. I know that many of them have no coal, and I know that if they had the means of getting it there is no coal for them, and from the standpoint of these people, parochial a view as you may think it, it would be a national calamity to have a strike at the present moment. Many of these people are on the verge of starvation, and we want to remember—and I am afraid we sometimes forget it—that it is owing to the heroism of the men who have left these homes, it is owing to the sacrifice of the women in these homes, that we are able to be here to-night discussing whether there is to be a strike or not. From the standpoint of these people's homes, I want to appeal to the Government, even at this last moment, and to the Labour party too, with whom I hope to vote, that there may be a compromise, so that this great national calamity may be averted. Those are just the few words I want to say in this my maiden speech in this House. I did not intend to intervene in this Debate at all, but hearing so many people speak,
and hearing so many people give platform speeches, I thought at last that possibly I might be allowed to say a word or two from the point of view of a platform speaker. I believe I am reputed to have obtained more recruits perhaps than any other man in Derbyshire, and I got them in this manner, that I went to them and reasoned this out with them, as to what their duty was, and I am bound to see here, as far as humanly possible, that their homes do not suffer while their men folk have gone to fight our battles, to make it possible for us to be here, and to make it impossible for the Germans to be here settling these disputes for us. The right hon. Member for Abertillery somehow seemed to me to hold out the olive branch to-night, and I cannot think it is beyond the wit of the Government and the Labour party to come to some decision whereby this great national calamity may be averted, and the homes of these people will not suffer as they will do if this strike comes about.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): We have certainly listened to a very interesting Debate an done in which there have been many speeches by new Members which showed a very close and intimate knowledge of the subject under discussion, but it is equally clear from the Debate, and from the speeches to which we have listened, that the issue between the Government and the Labour party, the question which has to be decided between them, is a very small question and really is not one for Second Reading Amendment to this Bill. When we are dealing with the arguments that have been put up, what is the point of view from which the Government must approach a consideration of the whole question? I do not think I can put it better than it was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby when he said, "Unless you give way upon this, unless you agree to eliminate from the inquiry of the Commission the question of hours and wages, and unless you accept the principle of nationalisation, there will be a strike." And he went on to say, "If we, the strikers, win, we have defeated the country." That was a very very important declaration to make, because it is perfectly clear that if a winning strike is a defeat of the country a strike at all is an attack upon the country; and, therefore, it is perfectly clear, and my right
hon. Friend has made it perfectly clear, what the duty of the Government is in this matter. He has shown perfectly clearly that the Government now is put by him and his Friends in the position of defending the country as a whole from attack by a small part of the community. My right hon. Friend spoke in no threatening manner, and I do not do so either. He put the facts clearly, and I am merely trying to do the same. But it shows the point of view from which it is essential that the Government should approach the consideration of these questions.
What is the issue between us, after all? I have not heard one single speech in the whole course of to-day which was opposed to the Commission as a Commission. From one end of the Debate to the other, there has been universal consent that the Commission should be set up for some purposes, and the only issue between us has been, what are the particular questions which are to be put to the consideration of the Commission? It is a very wide question. The whole of the future organisation of the coal industry is one which every man who knows anything about it must know is a very large question indeed. The question of nationalisation in itself is one of immense importance, and one of the most far-reaching effects, according to the way in which it is decided, and I do not think anyone could suggest that it has ever been really discussed or debated in this House in such a way as to say that it has been thrashed out, and that anyone is really in a position to give a considered judgment upon it.
We are asked to-night to accept the principle of nationalisation. What is the principle of nationalisation? I confess I do not understand the term. The nationalisation of mines is not a religion. It is a pure business proposition, and if it turns out on investigation that it is for the good of the country as a whole that the mines should be nationalised, that the people of the country would be better off if the mines were worked under a national system, rather than under private ownership, then it is a good business proposition, and we should accept it. I should not ascribe that as accepting the principle, and if my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite, when they say, "Will you accept the principle of nationalisation?" really mean, "If, on inquiry, it is found to be the best thing for the country, will you accept it?" then I unhesitatingly say, of course I accept the principle
of nationalisation. But, as I say, it is a business proposition, and a business proposition of great complexity, a business proposition of the most far-reaching effect, and, therefore, a business proposition which must be carefully considered before it can be accepted. That is one of the things which this Commission will inquire into. Can anybody suggest that in a question like the nationalisation of mines sixteen days here or there, or even three months here or there, is going to matter? What can it matter accepting what they have called, the principle of the thing? The Government desire to go into the matter to see if it is a good business proposition. If it is that, I accept it. If it is proved to be a national detriment rather than a national advantage, then the Government will oppose it. There their position stands. I should have have thought myself that for anyone who desired merely to do that which was best for the country, the proposal of the Government was the best, namely, that the whole question should be thrashed out with export evidence, expert opinion, expert knowledge, before a competent and highly efficient tribunal. So far for nationalisation.
What is the other suggestion—indeed the only other issue—between us? It is the question of wages and hours. There are other matters for investigation by the Commission included in the Bill. Those right hon. and hon. Members who have had time to study the Bill will have seen that in the various Sub-sections of Clause 1 there are a number of matters to be inquired into, including the selling prices and the profits of the coal industry. We have this afternoon heard speeches dealing with the profits of the coal-owners. I suppose one may include, that being the subject of one speech in particular, that hon. Members were of opinion that the profits were too big, and that thereby labour was deprived of some of the wages which it was thought it ought to have earned. That, I conclude, to be the argument intended. Does anyone who knows anything of the mining industry; does either the Miners' Federation or the Government really know anything about profits? In the speech that was made by my very old Friend the hon. Member for the Morpeth Division of Northumberland, reference was made to the fact that for years the Conciliation Boards had been endeavouring to go into the question of profits, and
that for years the mine-owners had successfully opposed them. We do not know to-day the real truth about profits. The Government have certain information. We cannot prove that information, nor can we prove the evidence the Government possess. But surely the intention of the Government to arrive at a conclusionis proved conclusively by the suggestion to set up this Commission. The mere fact that we are bringing in this Bill proves that we desire to ascertain what the truth is. If that is our motive and our intention does anyone suppose that we can do it without this Bill, or if we could have managed it without this legislation, we would not have done so? We have proved that we are in earnest by bringing in the Bill. Surely we would not have brought in the Bill if we could have done it without. We could not. We have not got the full information, and this Commission will obtain it. We have taken care in the proposals put forward that the Commission shall be in a position to do so. We could have set up a Committee of Inquiry, but without legislation that Committee would have been unable to force the truth from unwilling mine-owners, or firms, or companies. Under this Bill the Commission will be entitled to subpœna witnesses exactly in the same way as does a judge of the High Court. They can subpœna them to bring their books and disclose them for investigation. They can force witnesses to answer, and if a witness does not answer there is power to commit him for contempt of Court, exactly as can a High Court judge. The intention is not only to set up a Committee composed of men who, by their training and experience, are qualified to make this investigation, but also with power to make the inquiry thorough and complete when they are about it. In addition to that there shall be as much speed as practically possible. There is a provision for interim Reports, not only that they may make interim Reports with regard to any of the subjects before them, but they must make, as quickly as possible, the Report in regard to wages and hours. So far as the claim of the miners are based upon the excessive cost of living, they have had an offer made to them definitely to accept the position which the railway men have accepted—that they can take as the datum line the last rise in wages on account of the increased cost of living, and that they can, as the railway man, get the increase at
once without prejudice to any future claim they may make. With regard to their general claim as to the questions of wages and shorter hours, it has been definitely promised that any award that is made will date right back to the beginning. What is the loss by accepting this?

Mr. THOMAS: Date back to when, did you say?

Mr. SHORTT: I think the claim was made on the 9th January. I do not pledge myself, but it was about then. That is the position. What do the men lose by accepting the proposals of the Government? They have a strong case, I believe, at least that is my impression. If it is right they will succeed in their case, and they will not lose one day. Really to threaten an attack upon the country, to threaten a strike which must have appalling consequences merely as to what appears to be a bit of amour propre does not seem to be a tenable position for a great organisation. This really is a Committee question. The real way to raise this would

have been to move on the Committee stage to omit from Clause 1 these provisions. I ask the House to let us have the Second Reading. It is of immense importance that the Commission should be started at once. The learned judge is already in a position to begin his inquiry. We want him to start at once. It cannot harm the men in the least to give us the Second Reading because they accept a Commission for certain purposes. Therefore, as all these matters can be raised on the Committee stage I do ask and beg of my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite to give us the Second Reading of this Bill. The intention and motive is clear. The effect of it, assuming that even 50 per cent. of what has been said on behalf of the men's claim is true, must be to the advantage of the men. I therefore beg that the House will give this measure a Second Reading.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 43.

Division No. 4.]
AYES.
[10.39 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Chadwick, R. Burton
Glanville, Harold James


Ainsworth, Capt. C.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Glyn, Major R.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Gould, J. C.


Armitage, Robert
Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.


Baird, John Lawrence
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Grant, James Augustus


Baldwin, Stanley
Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.
Grayson, Lieut.-Col. H. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.
Greame, Major P. L.


Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Green, J. F. (Leicester)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Coote, Colln R. (Isle of Ely)
Greer, Harry


Barnston, Major Harry
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Greig, Col. James William


Barrand, A. R.
Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)
Gretton, Col. John


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Courthope, Major George Loyd
Griggs, Sir Peter


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. w. C. H. (Devizes)
Daiziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Davies, A. (Lincoln)
Hallas, E.


Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Haslam, Lewis


Bennett, T. J.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Henderson, Major V. L.


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)


Betterton, H. B.
Dennis, J. W.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Bigland, Alfred
Denniss, Edmund R. B.
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Dockrell, Sir M.
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)


Bird, Alfred
Donald, T.
Hinds, John


Blades, Sir George R.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hood, Joseph


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Duncannon, Viscount
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Edgar, Clifford
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham)
Hope, John Deans (Berwick)


Bowles, Col. H. F.
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Falcon, Captain M.
Howard, Major S. G.


Bramsdon, Sir T.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Hudson, R. M.


Brassey, H. L. C.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)


Breese, Major C. E.
Foreman, H.
Hurd, P. A.


Briant, F.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Hurst, Major G. B.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Inskip, T. W. H.


Brittain, Sir Harry E.
France, Gerald Ashburner
Jameson, Major J. G.


Britton, G. B.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Jephcott, A. R.


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Galbraith, Samuel
Jodrell, N. P.


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Johnstone, J.


Campbell, J. G. D.
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Jones, Sir E. R. (Merthyr)


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)


Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Seager, Sir William


Kellaway, Frederick George
Nall, Major Joseph
Seddon, J. A.


Kiley, James Daniel
Neal, Arthur
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Knight, Capt. E. A.
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Knights, Capt. H.
Newton, Major Harry Kottingham
Shortt, Right Hon. E.


Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Simm, M. T.


Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Smithers, Alfred W.


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Norris, Col. Sir Henry G.
Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville


Lindsay, William Arthur
O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Lloyd, George Butler
Parker, James
Steel, Major S. Strang


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Stewart, Gershom


Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Lonsdale, James R.
Percy, Charles
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Lorden, John William
Perkins, Walter Frank
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Perring, William George
Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Pickering, Col. Emil W.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Lowther, Col. C. (Lonsdale, Lancs.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Lynn, R. J.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Thompson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


M'Callum, Sir John M.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton
Townley, Maximillian G.


M'Guffin, Samuel
Pratt, John William
Tryon, Major George Clement


Mackinder, Halford J.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Walker, Col. William Hall


M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Purchase, H. G.
Wallace, J.


Macmaster, Donald
Rae, H. Norman
Walton, Sir Joseph (Barnsley)


M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Macquisten, F. A.
Ramsden, G. T.
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


M'Swiney, Terence
Raper, A. Baldwin
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Maddocks, Henry
Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Magnus, Sir Philip
Rees, Sir J. D.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Malcolm, Ian
Reid, D. D.
Whitla, Sir William


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Rendall, Athelstan
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Martin, A. E.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Mitchell, William Lane-
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)


Moles, Thomas
Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
Rowlands, James
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. C. T.
Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Morris, Richard
Samuel, A. L. (Eye, E. Suffolk)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Mount, William Arthur
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)



Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest


Murchison, C. K.
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)



Murray, Lt.-Col. Hn. A. C. (Aberd'n.)




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Sexton, James


Arnold, Sydney
Hartshorn, V.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Barton, R. C. (Wicklow, W.)
Hayday, A.
Sitch, C. H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Irving, Dan
Spoor, B. G.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Swan, J. E. C.


Cairns, John
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cape, Tom
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
O'Connor, T. P.
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
O'Grady, James
Wignall, James


Devlin, Joseph
Onions, Alfred
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Redmond, Captain William A.



Finney, Samuel
Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. T. Wilson and Mr. Griffiths.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND (ADVANCES).

Resolution reported,

"That it is expedient to authorise the issue of a sum, not exceeding £120,000,000, out of the Consolidated Fund to the Civil Contingencies Fund, and to make further provision in connection therewith."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Bonar Law.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND (ADVANCES).

Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. G. THORNE: I would like the Noble Lord to tell us what the business for to-morrow will now be, under the circumstances?

Lord E. TALBOT: To-morrow we shall go on with the Committee stage of the Bill we have just been discussing, and it is generally understood it will not be very prolonged, probably not beyond six
o'clock. Then we hope to get on with the Second Reading of the Ministry of Health Bill.

Captain BENN: Would the Noble Lord say on what day he is going to take the Air Force Votes A and 1? They were down for to-morrow.

Lord E. TALBOT: They will not be taken this week.

Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes before Eleven o'cloc